Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Glasgow, Central, in the room of Robert McTaggart Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]

Motion made and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the constituency of Vauxhall in the room of Stuart Kingsley Holland Esquire, who, since his election for the said constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—[Mr. Foster.]

Mr. Bernie Grant: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to object?

Mr. Grant: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, the motion stands over until the commencement of public business.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Earnings Rule

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the public expenditure cost of abolishing the earnings rule.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The estimated total public expenditure cost of abolishing the earnings rule for pensioners is £205 million in 1980–90, and £375 million in 1990–91.

Mr. Brazier: Is my hon. Friend aware that this measure will be greatly welcomed by many people of pensionable age, not least in my constituency, who seek to better themselves after the formal retirement age? Does he further agree that the welcome stimulus that it will provide to the economy by releasing many valuable skills back into the economy should, in the long run, make the measure self-financing?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. There will be greater choice for the elderly, the economy will benefit from the skills and experience supplied by pensioners continuing to work, and there will of course, be additional revenue for the Exchequer.

Mrs. Roe: Is my hon. Friend able to say how those people affected by the change will be informed of the new arrangements?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, we plan to write next month to all those in receipt of a reduced pension and all those who have deferred their pension. There will be others, of course, earning under £75 per week of whom we are not directly aware, but I hope and expect that they will learn of the measure through the extensive publicity and editorial comment.

Residential Homes

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the payment limits for residential homes.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We reviewed the limits last October and announced significant increases, which took effect last month.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern particularly among charitable organisations which want to offer high quality provision but are unable to do so due to inadequate funding, which they believe is not being met by the Government? The feeling that local authority provision of residential care is inadequately funded is causing anxiety and worry to many families, and there is growing suspicion that some of the private organisations which have been set up are becoming money-making bodies. Will the Minister apply his mind to those problems?

Mr. Scott: Of course, we watch all of this carefully. It is worth reminding the House that when the Government


came to office we were spending some £10 million per year on such support; 10 years later, the figure has increased to £1 billion per year.
About two out of three people in this type of accommodation are able to pay their fees from the support that they receive. The level of support set must take account of the interests of the taxpayer and not fuel the market. It was never designed to pay every fee that is charged in every area. I think that we achieved about the right balance in the upratings last month.

Mr. McCrindle: I recognise that substantial sums are being expended in this area of social security, but does my hon. Friend agree that in the process of building up that substantial figure public expenditure on the provision of accommodation for elderly people has been able to be curbed quite considerably? When my hon. Friend comes to review further requests for still greater assistance, will he bear in mind that in many ways it is rather a good investment as it may mean that local authorities do not have to expend quite so much as would otherwise be necessary?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that the system of national limits that we introduced in 1985 is a much better way of combining the interests of the taxpayer and the need to keep public expenditure under some sort of proper control with meeting the needs of those who require this kind of accommodation. As my hon. Friend will know, we are considering all these matters in the light of the Griffiths report on community care and the need to make proper judgments between the need for institutional care and domiciliary support.

Mr. Frank Field: When do the Government intend to respond to the Griffiths report?

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department of Health have that matter at the top of their agenda—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will know better than almost anyone in the House how complicated the subject is, and how important it is that those who have to make judgments between domiciliary care and residential care are able to do so, as far as possible, in a financially neutral climate. The Government are addressing the matter as one of great urgency and I hope to be able to make an announcement in the not too distant future.

Mr. Soames: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about increased resources, but is he aware that there are great disparities in the cost of residential homes between the north and the south due to the difficult situation in the labour market in my constituency and elsewhere in the south-east? Does my hon. Friend agree that in this area of the public provision, as in so many others, there should be some form of regional fixing of income and allowances to assist those who find life extremely difficult?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend knows that at present only London has a special enhancement of the rates that are paid, but I am conscious that the geographical spread, in a sense, goes wider than that. That is one of the matters that we shall have to bear in mind when we come to consider the Griffiths report.

Mr. Fearn: Has the Minister had any discussions with the National Care Homes Association or with Age Concern? I presume that he has seen the report from Age

Concern that many elderly people who have been in residential homes for some time are now being asked to quit.

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence relating to the many cases of which he speaks, I hope that he will make it available to me or to my colleagues in the Department of Health. We are constantly in touch with the providers and the time is coming when we shall need to take a fresh look at these matters in the context of the Griffiths report.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only monitoring of care standards or staff qualifications at small homes with fewer than four residents, which do not have to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, is on initial application and that there is no statutory requirement for continuous monitoring? Will the Department support the Department of Health in its review of the remit of the Registered Homes Act to bring smaller homes under statutory monitoring?

Mr. Scott: When these measures were first introduced there was a need to balance bureaucratic intrusion and complexity with the need to achieve proper standards. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health are concerned and they will have my full support in any action that they choose to take.

Mrs. Beckett: If the Minister is in touch with the care providers, what response does he intend to make to the now almost universal call, particularly from charities, for an urgent review of benefit rates in this year—1989—to avert an otherwise threatened financial collapse? Does he realise that many people, particularly the most dependent elderly people, are very fearful about the difficulty that they face in meeting the gap between rising costs and static benefit rates? Is the Minister aware that in many cases their children are also pensioners and cannot help them? When do the Government intend to do something about that?

Mr. Scott: I have no evidence whatever of any imminent collapse in provision in that area. Many people can look to other sources of income, including support from their families, and so on. It was never intended that the rates should meet the fee which is charged anywhere in the country, at whatever level it is set. If we did that, we should be making the market in that area, and it would not be sensible for us to do that. We listen very carefully to the providers, but I see no prospect of any enhancement of the rates in the current year.

Family Support

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of Government financial support for the family in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): The United Kingdom compares very favourably with other European Community member states in the financial support made available for the family. As far as child benefit is concerned, the real value of benefits for the majority of families is considerably higher than in most of the other states. Furthermore, our family credit scheme has no parallel elsewhere in the Community.

Mr. Nicholson: As the elections to the European Parliament will give the Government's opponents the opportunity to make the usual far-fetched allegations about our welfare benefits and contrast them with those in the EEC, will my right hon. Friend say whether other EEC countries have the same system of child benefit as ours, which is universal and tax-free? Will he also confirm that other EEC countries do not have our system of income support to low-income families, which is most welcome to such families?

Mr. Moore: There are quite a few points in that question. Essentially my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no comparable pattern of benefit. Italy, Germany and Greece have means tests for their child benefit systems. France does not pay benefits for the first child. To take an overall pattern, of the domestic purchasing power, for a two-parent family with one child under the age of two, the United Kingdom child benefit payment is the highest in the Community. For a two-child family with both children under the age of six—the average family size in Europe—the United Kingdom ranks third in the Community. I confirm my hon. Friend's point about income support. That structure, like family credit, must be seen in relation to the £9 billion which we spend to help families with children while part of that—£4·5 billion—goes to child benefit support.

Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the elderly members of our families—our pensioners—have the worst income in the EEC and that the situation is getting worse for pensioners throughout the country as their transitional protection is eroded? Does he accept that it was a mistake and wrong to break the link between pensions and earnings and that unless he changes that, British pensioners will become even poorer, when they are already feeling the squeeze?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady's first point was complete and utter nonsense. It was factually inaccurate and I must make that clear time and again. One of our difficulties in trying to make comparisons between our pensioners' rates and those in Europe is that our pensioners, like pensioners in only two other countries in Europe, have the benefit of a basic pension as well as the additional benefits to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security referred earlier, such as income support. The only accurate way to try to assess and judge the way in which this country tries to assist pensioners relative to the way in which other European countries treat pensioners is in regard to the percentage of gross domestic product overall——

Ms. Short: Flannel.

Mr. Moore: Those who shout "flannel" or "rubbish" from sedentary positions may like to be reminded of this. Would they like a system whereby those on low incomes for most of their lives—the vast majority in continental countries—receive no basic pension because pensions are earnings-related? I do not imagine that they would like such a system. The only comparison that can be made is with gross domestic product, and in that respect our pensioners rank third highest in the European league table, if there can be said to be such a thing.

Mr. Tredinnick: Child benefits in this country are universal and tax-free, but can the same be said of other EEC countries?

Mr. Moore: No. As I said earlier, the position varies enormously. Germany, Italy and Greece operate a means test, and much lower benefits are paid in most European Community countries by comparison with our child benefit. We pay the highest child benefit in Europe for a family with a child aged below two. As to the typical two-child family, we rank third in the Community. It is not possible to make specific comparisons, and I have tried to abjure from doing so.

Mr. Frank Field: How many claimants in Europe have been affected by transitional protection arrangements? So that we may make a comparison between this country and our European neighbours, can the Secretary of State also say how many British claimants failed to secure increased income in 1986, 1987 and 1988?

Mr. Moore: I commend the hon. Gentleman for trying to get in the question that his three absent hon. Friends were unable to put, but which I looked forward to answering. Those in Europe who might like to put such questions might be delighted to have the kind of income support structure that the Labour party has not sought to deny in its review, as I believe it is called.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that £1 billion of the £4·5 billion spent on child benefit goes to families with incomes in excess of £20,000? Would it not be better if more of the money going to wealthier families were targeted instead on genuinely less well-off families?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend was among those who recognised what I sought to do in this year's uprating decision, which was to add more than £70 million for the assistance of poorer families with children, thus recognising how much better off are many families with higher than average incomes. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one specific group benefiting from the £4·5 billion that we spend on child benefit.

Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Secretary of State, in his study of EEC data, consider the Commission's recent report that the number of families in Britain with below half the average income has almost doubled? Is not that the real reason why he is so anxious to judge poverty by the absolute standards of the Victorians? Does the right: hon. Gentleman accept that, judged by any relative standard, the rich are much richer and the poor are even further behind them?

Mr. Moore: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to embrace the absurd statistical illusions which suggest by definition that half of a nation, whatever its wealth, is in poverty. That kind of statistical absurdity, as I have tried to persuade people—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would not like it to be drawn to the attention of the House that he recognised and supported the point that I am trying to make in an article in The Sunday Times. I do not for one moment doubt that there is a need, and I would not be expending £51 billion —the largest social security expenditure this country has ever seen—if I did not think that there was a requirement to help and assist people. I would never deny that there is need, but that is not the same as citing absurd statistical nostrums which suggest that one third to half the nation is in poverty, which is rubbish.

Reforms (Review)

Mr. McCrindle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what current plans he has to review any aspect of the reforms introduced on 1 April 1988.

Mr. Moore: We have given an undertaking to monitor all aspects of the social security reforms, and that is a continuing process. We have given extra help to the least well-off families with children, for example, and we are making nearly £200 million extra available to older and disabled pensioners from October.

Mr. McCrindle: Given that many of the people within the Government's sights in terms of targeting benefits more efficiently are benefiting as a consequence of the 1988 review, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless take account of the failure, seemingly, of targeting to reach people just above income support level who were recently described in a pamphlet as being "not rich, not poor"? As many of them did not have the opportunity to build up an occupational pension, as so many people now retiring have done, are they not a section of society to which the Government ought urgently to turn their attention?

Mr. Moore: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that the new income support system is fairer and more generous. He also said—I thought it a fair point—that we should always remember that just above the income support line are people who, by any definition, are not well off. I know that he will be pleased about the way in which family credit tries to help poorer families with children, going some way up the income scale. He will also be delighted not only with the adjustments to transitional arrangements for housing benefit for those above income support level that we made last spring, but with the news that 1·4 million of the 2·6 million elderly and disabled pensioners who will benefit this autumn from the changes that we are introducing will be above that level.

Mr. Madden: In his review of the social security system, will the Secretary of State ensure that the practice of giving food vouchers to people who apply for crisis loans is scrapped? A constituent of mine, the mother of three children under eight, recently lost all her money. When she applied to the local office for £20, she was given a food voucher which stipulated that she could spend the money only at a named store within a week of its issue, that she must not spend it on tobacco, alcohol or sweets, and that the loan must be repaid in 1990. That food voucher was useless for her purpose—to buy a present for her son. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of a system which represents all the worst aspects of the old poor relief system which we all thought that we had left behind years ago?

Mr. Moore: I am extremely pleased that as a result of the Government's economic success we are able to spend vast amounts on income support and, in addition, on such things as the social fund. Some people receive vouchers of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall look into what he has said, but I am sure that he would wish to put this into perspective.

Mr. Madden: So would my constituent.

Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman could contain his inherent bitterness for a second, he might like to concern

himself with the million or so people who have already benefited from the social fund. They are not exactly complaining.

Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend base his review on one criterion—the existence of a strong net below which no one can fall? Does he agree that we must not become confused by those in the media who, in recent weeks, have tried to relate such a net to equality? The purpose of the social security system has never been to introduce more equality into society. It has always been to ensure that people are properly protected.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has expressed very well points that I have lately been trying to address. We are trying to help large numbers of our fellow citizens who are clearly in need. We must keep that clear in our minds, and not be forced by distorted statistics into the pretence that the country is somehow failing, creating an illusory poverty affecting one third of the population. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask me to look constantly to see what parts of society need additional help, and I shall seek consistently to do that.

Mr. Robin Cook: What hope does the right hon. Gentleman's review hold for the quarter of a million pensioners and other claimants receiving transitional protection, who received no increase last year or this year and who under the present rules will receive none next year? Is he aware that by definition they are among the frailest and most disabled claimants? It would be outrageous if they spent a third year on a frozen income, reduced to what by any standards—absolute or relative —is a degree of poverty that is a disgrace to any civilised society.

Mr. Moore: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting back to the question that his hon. Friends keep trying to ask but never seem to be present to do so. I will put the matter into perspective. The hon. Gentleman seems not to be endorsing the new structural income support system that his own team's review does not seem to wish to reject.
Of those on supplementary benefit, 35 per cent. received no payment for additional requirements of any kind. The average additional requirement payment to the sick and disabled—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the disabled—was £5·34 a week. Instead, 220,000 claimants are now receiving a disability premium of £13·20. That is a considerable improvement, which I would expect both sides of the House to welcome.
Some 4,400 disabled people were receiving domestic assistance additions, averaging—[Interruption.] I realise that this answer will be unpalatable to the Opposition Front Bench. Those people were getting domestic assistance addition, averaging £4·87 a week. Now over 7,000 are, I am happy to say, getting the severe disability premium of £26·20 a week. That is an illustration of the change to a new and better system to help those who are most disadvantaged.

Maternity Benefits

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what comparative assessment he has made of the United Kingdom system of maternity benefits as against those of other EC member states.

Mr. Scott: We do of course in this area, as in many others, take note of what is happening elsewhere in the Community. We concluded that our record compares very favourably with the other European Community member states where only two countries—Denmark and Italy—provide income replacement for a longer period.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Do all other EEC countries provide maternity grants?

Mr. Scott: In Germany, Greece and Portugal, only insured people are entitled to such benefit, whereas we provide benefit for all working pregnant women by means of one or other of the allowances or benefits.

Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister agree that one ought to look not only at the amount of maternity benefit that women receive but at the length of time that they are allowed maternity benefit? I am sure that the Minister will want to hear about a most interesting comparison—I look forward to his comments—of the length of time that women receive maternity benefit. If I were pregnant in West Germany, I would get benefit for 32 weeks, In Italy for 21 weeks, in France for 16 weeks, in Spain for 14 weeks and in Ireland for 14 weeks, but here women get it for six weeks. [Interruption.] Obviously male Conservative Members of Parliament do not have the child care problems that many women in this country have to face. I am sure that the Minister will accept that that is the important comparison.

Mr. Scott: Only two countries in the European Community—Denmark and Italy—pay income replacement for longer periods than we do. There are some insured benefits, but they are not on the basis of income replacement, as ours is.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend put the record absolutely straight? Is he aware that although we are one of the most generous payers of maternity benefit, Labour party MEPs have been advertising at great expense, and quite falsely, that we pay maternity benefit only for six weeks?

Mr. Scott: I am surprised that the Opposition should be so economical with the truth in that particular area. Although earnings-related SMP runs only for six weeks, for another 12 weeks after that it continues as a flat rate benefit.

Ms. Richardson: I do not understand how the Minister can be so smug about the benefits that he claims are available to pregnant women. Britain is the worst provider of statutory maternity pay for pregnant working women in the EEC. The eligibility criteria that the Government have introduced have deprived over half Britain's working women of any entitlement at all. Will the Minister comment on the fact that Britian is unique in Europe in giving no maternity leave, as of right to all pregnant women in employment? Furthermore, 87 per cent. of the part-timers working less than 20 hours are women. There is no universal right to a maternity grant. Many women notice that to their detriment.

Mr. Scott: Maternity leave is provided for women in full-time regular employment. That is the basis of the system. That is why it was introduced, and it is right that it should be on that basis. If we allowed any part-timer

—however many hours were worked—to have maternity leave, we should open the gates to all sorts of abuses of the system.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount spending by his Department has changed in real terms over the past five years for which figures are available.

Mr. Moore: By about £2·25 billion between 1983–84 and 1988–89, a real increase of 5 per cent. We plan to increase spending by a further £3·5 billion in the present year, bringing total expenditure to over £51 billion, nearly one third of public spending.

Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn some elements of the professional poverty lobby in this country who continue to ignore the fact that everybody is better off than they were, as is evidenced by the fact that in the 15 years to 1985 average household incomes rose by 25 per cent. in real terms? In addition, the poor and the needy are now in receipt of 31 per cent of public spending this year, as against 25 per cent. in 1979.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps unwisely, I tried in a recent speech, which attracted some attention, to take a period of time which is disconnected from any particular party's period of office to illustrate what has happened during the past 40 years, during which successive Governments have tried to improve the lot of the least well-off people in society. It does no service to them, or to those of us who try to help them, to distort the truth. We shall help people who are genuinely in need much more effectively through our current massive, and record, social security spending.

Mr. Heffer: I accept that the mass of the people are far better off than they were in the 1930s. We are not talking in terms of that type of poverty. Is it not clear that people who are at the lowest end of the income scale, who are struggling on benefits and on low wages, could have been a lot better off if the Government had not given great hand-outs in tax to their friends but had given that money to the people at the lower end of the scale?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Member genuinely cares about these issues. 1 am glad that he recognises that all are better off. His argument seems to be that those at the bottom could have been even better off as a result of different economic policies. It is extraordinary that the Opposition's argument is now about how to spend the results of Conservative economic success. It may be of interest to the hon. Member to know and consider that, 10 years ago, the top 5 per cent. paid 25 per cent. of gross income tax. Today they pay nearly 30 per cent. Their success has added to the success that allows me to spend the present record sums on those in need.

Disabled Parents

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to improve social security benefits for children of disabled parents.

Mr. Scott: As my hon. Friend knows we have increased real spending on the long-term sick and disabled by 90 per


cent. to £7·3 billion since 1978–79. He will also know that, when we have all six reports from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, we will be better placed to judge whether this help is well directed.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend gives an excellent report in terms of what we have been able to achieve so far. We are talking about a particularly brave group of children and parents. Will he consider two aspects of their lives closely? First, when a child's education is continually disrupted by being called out of school to look after a sick and disabled parent, perhaps some form of additional care and respite could alleviate that.
Secondly, when two disabled parents manage to cope in the home but have difficulty getting their able-bodied child to school, a discretionary payment can be made by the education authority, but when no payment is made, as has recently been the case with the Inner London education authority, such families receive no help.

Mr. Scott: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is clear that, in the circumstances which he described, the Child Care Act 1980 lays a responsibility on local authority social services departments to promote the welfare of such children. Normally, when such a case is brought to the attention of the social services department, it liaises with health authorities and voluntary agencies and is able to provide a wide range of domiciliary services, including respite care, which are in the interests of the child.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that children of disabled parents whose incomes were cut in last year's social security changes also became poorer at a time of rapidly rising prices and when child benefit has been losing its value? Has this not piled handicap on handicap for these families? In advance of the review of disablement benefits, not to ignore what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said, will the Minister introduce a special allowance for families in which children do so much for their parents to enable them to stay at home?

Mr. Scott: Apart from reiterating my opening reply, I remind the House that when we introduced income support, the income support disability premium gave £60 million extra to 270,000 people—an important enhancement of support for disabled people. I am not dismissing the problems of child carers, but I reiterate that they have to be addressed by a partnership between central Government, local authorities and local health authorities in the provision that they can make for individual cases.

Community Charge

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the community charge rebate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Scretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for paying the rebate of the community charge.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We estimate that one in four of those liable for community charge in Great Britain will benefit from the effective help given by the rebate scheme to those on low incomes. In addition, the special element built into

the rates of the income-related benefits will help nearly 9 million people with the minimum contribution they have to make from their own resources.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister let the Secretary of State know that I am here, and I am always here? Is he aware that last Friday we met Church leaders in Nottinghamshire? The have their feet on the ground in the community and know about the problems of people in poverty. I use the word poverty because it is there. When will the Government spend some money on telling the people about their rights to rebates for the community charge? Wake up!

Mr. Lloyd: We always notice when the hon. Gentleman is here. I am grateful that he has had time to ask his question as it provides a further opportunity to advertise the rebate scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows there are editorial comments, leaflets, advertising and the fact that local authorities make their own arrangements for letting people know. There will be no doubt at all that all those eligible for a rebate will have had plenty of opportunity to learn that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Galleries (Openings)

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many new galleries have been opened by the main national institutions in the last five years.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Five major new galleries have been opened by national institutions during the last five years: the Tate gallery, Liverpool; the Clore gallery on the Tate's Millbank site; the Victoria and Albert's theatre museum in Covent Garden; the British Film Institute's museum of the moving image; and the Imperial War museum's new superhangar at Duxford. In addition, most of the national institutions have redesigned and refurbished areas within their existing buildings to create new gallery space.

Miss Widdecombe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent indication of his policy of partnership in the museum world, and that coupled with the 53 per cent. increase in Government grants for repairs and maintenance, it gives the lie to any claims that the museum world is in a state of crisis?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is absolutely true that the amount of redevelopment and the opening of new galleries in the past few years has been enormous. A number of other new galleries are in progress, including the Sainsbury wing at the national gallery, further plans for new galleries at the British museum and the complete refurbishment of the Queen's house at the national maritime museum. An enormous amount is happening and, as my hon. Friend said, with the increase in the amount of money for building and maintenance, the overall resources and the improvement in the national institutions are progressing very well.

Mr. Frank Field: As part of this refurbishment programme, what steps is the Minister taking to move those collections which are never shown by London galleries in the north, particularly Merseyside?

Mr. Luce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have warmly welcomed the opening of the Tate gallery in Liverpool last year with the extension of the Tate to Merseyside. A vast amount of lending is now taking place. The Tate gallery, the British museum, the national gallery and the Victoria and Albert lend a large number of objects. With the extension of outstations of various national institutions around the country, there is much wider access to our collections.

Northern Ballet

Mr. Favell: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the funding of the Northern Ballet.

Mr. Luce: The funding of the Northern Ballet theatre is a matter for the Arts Council. The House will be pleased to note that the council has decided to continue funding for at least two more years to enable the company to stabilise its financial situation.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that that news has been received with acclaim throughout the north. Is it not true that under Christopher Gable, the artistic director, the Northern Ballet theatre has made enormous strides in standards? Is it not also true that all arts organisations require a sound and firm financial foundation upon which to base their work?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to pay tribute to Christopher Gable who has given remarkably strong leadership to the Northern Ballet theatre over the past few months. The standard of its productions is undoubtedly high and it is attracting new audiences to ballet, which is an important development. If Northern Ballet can get its own house in order, which it is well on the way to doing, it has a strong future.

English National Opera

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has held about the future funding of English National Opera.

Mr. Luce: The funding of individual arts organisations is a matter for the Arts Council, but I keep in touch with the chairman and director of English National Opera.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread admiration for the English National Opera, which has made enormous strides in the quality of its productions as well as in education, touring and attracting sponsorship? Is he aware that there is widespread unease that the company is unable to plan ahead because of the failure to reach an agreement with Westminster city council in particular? Will he talk to his colleagues in Government about that?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the English National Opera's standard of excellence in the arts. Its last season was remarkable and there were many new productions. There are five new productions in the coming season. It does an extremely effective job in generating new audiences for opera and I have nothing but praise for what it achieves. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that a proportion of its grant comes from Westminster city council. It is an important contribution to its overall funding. The Government

provide just under £7 million and its total resources are about £15 million. Therefore, it is an important sum and I hope that Westminster city council, in considering what support it can give, will enlist the support of other London boroughs on whose behalf at present it gives support to the English National Opera.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend take this matter seriously as the English National Opera is an important and successful British institution whose viability is jeopardised by a side effect of the reorganisation of local government finance? Will he talk with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on this matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Luce: In the past I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on this matter and I attach great importance to it. It is right at this stage to stress that I look to Westminster city council to decide what it can contribute and then to generate support from other London boroughs to see what they can do to help English National Opera.

Incentive Funding Scheme

Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent the incentive funding scheme has achieved the return and objectives estimated when it was introduced.

Mr. Luce: A total of £18 million of additional money is expected to benefit 48 organisations since this scheme began in 1988. This represents £3 of private sector money for every £1 invested by the taxpayer.

Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme has done a great deal to encourage many organisations to improve their professionalism, particularly in marketing? Has that not brought considerable benefits to many consumer and arts organisations? Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the benefits brought to Yorkshire and the north?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. One of the main purposes of the scheme is to provide an incentive to organisations to diversify their sources of funding and become even more professional in their management. Under the initial scheme we have already achieved a £3 return for every £1 invested, which is a big improvement on what was targeted—£2 for every £1 invested. That shows the enthusiasm with which some arts bodies are receiving the scheme and the effort they are making to obtain extra sources of funding from the private sector.
I am pleased to be able to say that, of all the regions, Yorkshire comes second with 20 per cent. of all the awards.

Mr. Butler: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what importance is given to the regions under the scheme? Do they lose out to London? Can he tell me to what extent business sponsorship has grown in total?

Mr. Luce: Over 70 per cent. of the organisations that receive incentive funding are based outside London. I am anxious to achieve the highest standards of excellence throughout the country. That is important to the success of the arts, which should be accessible to people throughout the country.

Museums and Galleries

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will conduct a national audit of the state of the buildings of the national museums and galleries.

Mr. Luce: I have no plans to do so. The national museums and galleries commission their own building surveys and present their conclusions in the context of the corporate plans which they submit to my Department.

Mr. Haynes: It is time that this Minister woke up. Is he aware that national museums and galleries are falling down? We need a national audit to put that right. I am asking this Minister to wake up, as well as Social Security Ministers.

Mr. Luce: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but he should recharge his batteries, change direction and embrace as warmly as he can the fact that I have increased resources available to museums and galleries for building and maintenance by 53 per cent. Will he give his strong support for that?

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept the statement made by the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum that they have inherited a £50 million backlog from the Property Services Agency and that the trustees of the Tate gallery have inherited a £27 million backlog? The increase for the coming year will be only 2·1 per cent. If the Minister accepts those figures, what will he do about them? If he does not accept them, will he accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) of a national audit to establish how badly placed our national museums are?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is tending to fall for the Armageddon syndrome—everything is coming to an end in the arts world and there is a crisis, which there is not. A series of problems are being tackled. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that this year we shall spend £48 million on building and maintenance of our national institutions, and that the amount over the next four years will increase by 53 per cent. When will he acknowledge that?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ethnic Monitoring

Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on his Office's ethnic monitoring policies.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer. It has a range of policies to ensure equality of opportunity for all staff. The ethnic origin of applicants and new entrants to the Civil Service is monitored.

Mr. Janner: Is it correct that, as a result of monitoring exercises, the Minister has found that his Department does not employ one person from an ethnic minority in grades one to four, or grade six, and only one in grades five or seven, which is better than most Departments in which not one black person is employed in grades one or two and only one in grades three or four? Does the Minister agree that this is a deplorable reflection on past promotion and

recruitment policies? What does he propose to do about it, when the Civil Service is giving such a poor lead to the nation's employers.

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge that the number of Asian or black people employed in senior positions in my Office is small—only 1 per cent. of those above grade seven. The number of Asian or black people employed within the service as a whole reflects the number throughout the country——

Mr. Janner: Only in the lower grades.

Mr. Luce: Indeed, it is only in the lower grades, but as they become more experienced their promotion prospects will increase. I am not satisfied that equality of opportunity is adequate for staff to reach senior levels. I am therefore glad to be able to tell the House that all Departments have agreed to draw up a comprehensive action programme to increase equality of opportunity for black and Asian staff, which I hope will help.

Mr. Marlow: How does one resolve some of the queries arising out of this monitoring nonsense? Does my right hon. Friend have a sort of colour code in his Department? Perhaps, if one was going to be objective about it, my right hon. Friend could help the House by letting us know what the ethnic classification is of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who asked the question?

Mr. Janner: White and Jewish.

Mr. Luce: There are understood procedures, and I understand the question that my hon. Friend asked. It is important that equality of opportunity is ensured, so that there is a fair and open system and that people are recruited on merit.

Recruitment

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many students were recruited into the Civil Service (a) direct from schools and (b) direct from universities (i) in the past year and (ii) 10 years ago; what were the costs of the recruitment exercise in each case; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: Information is not available in the form requested.
The Civil Service Commission recruited a total of around 7,000 people in 1988 of whom over 2,500 were young graduates. Most recruitment of school leavers is carried out locally by employing departments.

Mr. Greenway: Does a school leaver have as much opportunity to get to the top of the Civil Service as a recruited graduate? If not, will my right hon. Friend do something about the old boy network which prevents this?

Mr. Luce: School leavers who do not have university experience have that opportunity if they have the talent. They can join the Civil Service at a particular level with two A-levels and, if they prove themselves after two years, can be transferred to the fast stream. This means that there are opportunities for people of all backgrounds and experience to work their way to the top.

Ms. Mowlam: Are figures available on male and female recruitment to the Civil Service over the past 10 years? What steps are taken to break down the old boy network on that front as well?

Mr. Luce: I am surprised that the hon. Lady is not aware that there is a programme of action to recruit more women into the Civil Service. The fact that there will be a great decline in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds coming on to the market in the next five years means that the competition will be intense. There already is a programme of action to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for women.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend give figures on the recruitment of students in science and engineering? Does he agree that if there has been an increase it must be good news in terms of better recognition being given to the work of our engineers and scientists?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Last year was a record year for recruitment of engineers and technology specialists, although there are still problems in other specialist areas, such as computing. Because a much more flexible pay system is evolving in the Civil Service, we can deal more effectively with problems concerning the specialist skills that we so badly need.

Trade Unions

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.

Mr. Barnes: Is there not a need to protect and, often, to re-establish traditional Civil Service impartiality? The Government oblige civil servants to involve themselves in the production of propaganda, the worst of which are probably the poll tax leaflets. Is it not a disgrace that the Government are forcing civil servants into a position where their traditional standing begins to be threatened?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must have missed last week's debate when the rules and regulations on Government advertising were made clear. It is perfectly proper to carry out such advertising, provided that it is in no way party political. I would go much further than that and say that it is surely the duty of any Government to ensure that their citizens know their rights and responsibilities and the important implications of legislation. It is important that the community should know for its own sake the facts and details of the community charge.
I totally refute the suggestion that the Civil Service is not impartial. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee recently stressed that in its view the Civil Service was certainly impartial.

Mr. Kirkhope: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with representatives of the Civil Service trade unions further

placements of their members in industry and commerce, outside the Civil Service? Has he had any response from the trade unions to such initiatives?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. He may be aware of the bridge programme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I launched about two months ago, in which we are drawing further attention to industry and commerce on the prospects of more secondment and more exchanges between the Civil Service and the private sector. There has been an initial response to the programme. I hope that there will be an increase in such exchanges. I have no reason to believe that the trade unions object to them.

Dr. Marek: Did the Minister consult the trade unions before the Secretary of State for Social Security made his statement to the House recently about operational changes within his Department? What do the trade unions think about the matter.?

Mr. Luce: My right hon. Friend made it plain in his announcement last week that he would consult the trade unions on the staff changes, as is the case with every agency that we establish. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the significance and importance of my right hon. Friend's decision, which will ensure that the vast bulk of the operations of the benefits office, of the national insurance contribution service and of the information technology service are turned into agencies with clear performance targets, so that the services to the consumer can be made plain and can be improved upon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that warmly.

Agencies

Mr. Key: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether any new Civil Service agencies have been established since 24 April.

Mr. Luce: No further agencies have been established, but on 17 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that he had decided that virtually all the operational tasks of his Department should be given agency status with clear target dates for when those agencies should be launched. I expect more agencies to be set up before the summer recess.

Mr. Key: That is good news. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what improvements he is considering in training for the management and delivery of services to the public? However, will he also consider the implications for the many staff who face a considerable period of uncertainty in the agency programme, such as those at the aircraft and armaments experimental establishment at Boscombe Down, about which no decision has yet been made on agency status?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of those developments. Part of their purpose is to ensure improved performance and better management of the service and services to the public, and I believe that those aims will be achieved. In the announcement of all the agencies, plenty of time is being given. In the case of the largest agency—the benefit service—which involves 70,000 people, the change will not be made until spring 1991. That will give plenty of time to look at the future and to plan the staff required.

Soviet Diplomats and Journalists (Expulsion)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the expulsion by Britain of eight Soviet diplomats and three journalists and the expulsion by the Soviet Union of a similar number of British diplomats and journalists.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Soviet ambassador was asked to call at the Foreign Office on Friday 19 May. He was informed by the political director, Sir John Fretwell, that 11 present members of the Soviet community in London, and a further three who have recently departed, had been carrying out activities incompatible with their status. Mr. Zamyatin was asked to arrange for their withdrawal within 14 days. He was also informed that we were declaring persona non grata three Soviet officials who had recently left. I am arranging for the names of those concerned to be circulated in the Official Report.
Less than 36 hours later, on the evening of Saturday 20 May, our ambassador in Moscow, Sir Rodric Braithwaite, was informed by the Soviet Foreign Ministry that eight members of our embassy staff and three British journalists were required to leave the Soviet Union within two weeks. A further three former members of the embassy were declared persona non grata. In addition, a quota would be established for the personnel of British organisations and representatives in Moscow.
The decision of Her Majesty's Government was taken only after very careful consideration and on the basis of incontrovertible evidence. By contrast, the Soviet Union's almost instant mirror-image response has no possible justification. It is all the more to be deplored that the Soviet Union should have chosen, in these circumstances, to expel three British correspondents whose independence is not in question. Their work has contributed directly to the recent significant improvement in relations between our two countries, which has been welcomed by the whole House. It was primarily to give the Soviet Union an opportunity to show that this improvement extended to an area where Soviet behaviour has been at its most unregenerate that we decided not to give any initial publicity to our decision to expel members of the Soviet community.
The Soviet Union's response to that deliberate restraint on our part shows how far it still has to go to live up to the standards of behaviour that the free world regards as normal. Even so, we shall continue to work to sustain the improvement in relations that has taken place and to which we attach importance. But we shall not turn a blind eye to unacceptable activity, which threatens our national security and so the safety of our citizens.

Mr. Kaufman: The Opposition regard the expulsion of three reputable British journalists from Moscow as wrong and completely without justification. We deplore any proven cases of Soviet espionage in this country. We assert the right of Britain to take proper action to protect national security and we ask the Government the following questions.
Why were the expulsions of Soviet nationals from Britain handled so incompetently, with the news announced not in London by the Foreign Office but as a result of Soviet action in Moscow? Did the Foreign Secretary really delude himself that he could keep this action quiet? Were the expulsions the best way, or indeed the only way, of handling the issue? Could not the problem have best been sorted out directly during the visit of President Gorbachev to Britain last month? When did these cases come to light? Was it during the last few days or was it earlier? Did the Government take into account the danger of tit-for-tat reprisals? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman worried about the serious deterioration in British-Soviet relations that is now occurring, with Mr. Genady Gerasimov today warning of a further 170 expulsions of British citizens from the Soviet Union to bring its quota into line with our limit of 205 Soviets here?
British security must be safeguarded, but is it best safeguarded by reawakening cold war attitudes on both sides?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was tempted to welcome the support that the right hon. Gentleman offered me in the first two or three sentences of his question, but in the light of the hand-wringing querulousness with which he continued, I do not now find it possible to do so. I explained to the House why we took the action in that way, precisely for the deliberate purposes that I have described. If I had announced these matters in a different fashion, ahead of the announcement made in the Soviet Union, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have been the first to accuse me of provocative cold war attitudes. The decision to expel those people was taken only after the most careful consideration, after a long period in which the Soviet Union had been increasingly aware of our deep concern about such matters.
We are not alone in finding it necessary, sadly, to take such decisions. We are aware that a total in the past five years of 248 Soviet officials have been required to return to the Soviet Union from postings abroad, including expulsions in this country. In the past 12 months alone, a total of 24 Soviet officials have been expelled from 12 countries. We had no alternative but to take this action now, in the light of the mounting evidence of an accumulating risk to the security of the people of this country. I invite the entire House to support what we have done.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us have been impressed by the efforts of President Gorbachev to introduce more glasnost and openness in Soviet affairs, such as more openness in its conduct of foreign policy? While applauding my right hon. and learned Friend's reticence in announcing the action that was taken, I am aware that the Soviet response of expelling highly reputable journalists who had carried out their normal functions of reporting the news shows that the malign influence of the KGB is still abroad in the Soviet Union. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from those who want more co-operation with the Soviet Union that we are deeply depressed by the evidence that the KGB has not been put out to grass?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support, especially over the way in which we have handled the announcement. He knows that no one has


striven harder than my right hon. Friend and myself, during the six years that I have held this office, to promote an improvement in east-west relations. My right hon. Friend and I have sincerely and warmly welcomed any improvements. We shall continue to welcome all the evidence of new thinking that President Gorbachev and my opposite number, Mr. Shevardnadze, have brought to the conduct and management of Soviet foreign policy. That makes it all the more regrettable that these matters have demonstrated a continuance of certain activities and of an attitude that shows that, at least in this area, new thinking has not yet penetrated the Soviet structure. We wanted to give that a chance to happen, and we still hope that it will.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Soviet Government that both this House and this country regard the right of independent reporters to report independently as a fundamental civil liberty? Can he assure the House that there was no means other than expulsion to remove those Soviet citizens from this country? Could not that have been secured by a voluntary arrangement, which would not have created the resulting tension?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point. It is regrettable that the Soviet Union should have chosen to disregard the legitimacy of independent journalists' activity just at the conclusion of the London Information Forum, during which both east and west exchanged views to try to establish that principle.
It is not possible to take action other than expulsion in cases of such unacceptable activity. That has been plainly underlined by the unwillingness of the Soviet Union to respond to our action in the way that I had hoped.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of people in Britain will welcome his action and deplore the Opposition's wimpish attitude? Does he further agree that this unhappy episode makes it clear that there is another face to the Soviet Union, which has nowhere near been exorcised yet, and that it behoves us to keep up our guard for the foreseeable future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome my hon. Friend's support and endorse his last point. The continuance of such conduct makes it necessary for us to remain vigilant in all aspects of the Soviet Union's conduct. I wish to emphasise one point, which I am sure has the support of the whole House—that we would prefer to live in a world in which the Soviet Union, in this matter, had caught up with some of its new thinking in other matters. The world would be a far better place if the Soviet Union was willing to discontinue such unacceptable activity, which unfortunately still affects its relations with many other countries.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I agree that the expulsion of the three journalists is foolish and that their work in the Soviet Union has been of great value. What does the Foreign Secretary mean by "new thinking"? Does not spying take place by all countries? During the past few minutes one would have thought that only the Russians engaged in spying. Would it be a good idea to hold a conference not only to balance nuclear and conventional weapons but to balance the amount of spying carried out by all countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the three journalists, who are all experienced writers and who have provided faithful reporting, of a high quality, on the Soviet Union. That has been in the interests of both countries. I must make it clear that the diplomats concerned have, in their different areas, also made an important contribution to relations between our two countries.
The right hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate from his experience in office, supported by the figures that I have given the House, that the scale and nature of unacceptable activities undertaken by the Soviet Union are in a class of their own and have continued unabated during recent years. That is why we have had to take this action.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this action justifies the Government's cautious approach throughout the glasnost and perestroika of the past few months? Is he aware also that the term "deliberate restraint" is not in Opposition Members' vocabulary and that, by raising the matter in such a way today, they have demonstrated their total inadequacy to run the foreign affairs of this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not find it difficult to agree with my hon. and learned Friend's last point. I cannot emphasise too strongly that, in our handling of this matter, we were concerned only to take the right decisions for the security and safety of the people of this country. We were not looking for any kind of propaganda advantage. With the success that has been acclaimed on both sides of the House, we continue to remain committed to the improvement of relations betweeen East and West. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was muttering from a sedentary position, is now repudiating the tribute that he has paid on many occasions to Her Majesty's Government's success in improving relations between East and West. That is our objective. It is a matter of the utmost regret that that kind of conduct on the part of Soviet authorities should continue.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that although, unfortunately, there are several KGB people stationed in this country who could not care less about improving Anglo-Soviet relations, there is speculation that other people—certainly those on the Tory Benches and in other places—also could not care less about the undoubted improvements in relations which, as the Foreign Secretary has admitted, have occurred between the Soviet Union and this country? Is the Foreign Secretary aware also that there is added speculation that the Prime Minister herself wanted an issue prior to the NATO summit to try to demonstrate that the Soviet Union remains the enemy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question is down to the usual quality of his interrogation. As I told the House this afternoon, the action that we have taken was taken in the face of accumulating evidence that could not have been allowed to continue any longer. It has been taken with regret, because we would like to see an end to such activity on the part of the Soviet Union. We are determined to go on working in the future, as we have done in the past, for improved relations. We only hope that the Soviet Union will understand exactly what that should entail on its part.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Russian intelligence and secret services had an independent existence within the Soviet state long before the Soviet Union was ever invented—back to the days of Peter the Great? Does he recognise that, for Russian intelligence, glasnost and perestroika mean "take the foreign suckers for a ride"?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not follow my hon. Friend in the full sweep of his eloquent denunciation. However, I remind him that the whole House has welcomed what President Gorbachev is trying to achieve for the Soviet people and for the improvement of relations between that country and the rest of the world. Perestroika and glasnost are part of that. The whole House should join me in regretting the extent to which those propositions manifestly do not apply to the matters with which we are concerned today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the Foreign Secretary saying to Mr. Roxburgh, one of the journalists involved, who went into print to say that these matters are rather better handled in a number of other countries such as Germany and France? Without being offensive to the Foreign Secretary, he will forgive me for asking whether, in the light of GCHQ and Zircon, the incontrovertible evidence has been submitted to the Security Commission. For example, does Lord Griffiths of Govilon, a High Court judge and chairman of the Security Commission, agree that it is incontrovertible evidence?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter has been handled in accordance with the normal standards that apply to matters of this kind, without—

Mr. Dalyell: The normal standards are Westland.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —without enthusiasm and with great regret. We have concluded that the action that we have taken was absolutely necessary. To remove the impression that was left by his question, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the past 12 months alone, Soviet officials have been expelled from a dozen countries covering a wide range of political backgrounds. This is the inevitable response to the character and quality of such Soviet action.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on giving the House a courageous and rather terrifying insight into Labour party security policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I concur with that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the statements made by some of his colleagues today suggest that—contrary to all the meetings between Gorbachev and the Prime Minister and others in this country—they want the cold war flames to be fanned once again?
How many diplomats have been sent back to South Africa, apart from the three referred to earlier this year? How many have been sent back to Japan or to West Germany? If the Prime Minister is so concerned about the carryings-on in the Common Market, how many have been sent back to Common Market countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can always be trusted to broaden the scope of the question. For his benefit and for the benefit of the House, I repeat that our action in this case has been careful, measured, to the point, and designed to deter the continuation of unacceptable activity by and on behalf of the Soviet Union. This is action that we have been compelled to take, together with many other countries in the free world. We hope that the Soviet Union will learn its lesson, because the whole House wants to see a comprehensive, genuine and sustained improvement in relations with the Soviet Union. That will not be possible on the scale that we would wish as long as misconduct of this kind continues to take place.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question and an extension of Question Time. We must now move on to a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.

Following are the names:

List of those Soviet Officials currently in London who have been given 14 days notice to leave

A. A. Bagin, embassy driver
N. L. Kolodin, air attaché
I. N. Kudashkin, Soviet trade delegation
I. N. Kuzmin, Novosti press agency
S. V. Kuznetsov, third secretary, Soviet embassy
A. V. Makarukov, attaché, Soviet embassy
I. N. Peskov, TASS
Y. P. Sagaydak, Komsomolskaya Pravda
Y. A. Smirnov, assistant air attaché
N. G. Tuyev, third secretary, Soviet embassy
M. G. Zhiltsov, assistant naval attaché

List of those Soviet Officials who have left the United Kingdom but who have been declared persona non grata

V. I. Kozlov, former military attaché
A. G. Marshankin, former assistant military attaché
S. I. Novozhilov, formerly at the Soviet trade delegation

Brigade of Gurkhas

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
We have been considering the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas after the United Kingdom withdraws from Hong Kong in 1997. We recognise the concerns of the Gurkhas about their future, but there are many uncertainties inherent in trying to look this far ahead. The international scene is currently in a period of change with welcome improvements in east-west relations and correspondingly better prospects for progress in conventional arms control. Domestically, as a result of demographic factors, the number of young people from whom the Army must recruit is now well below the level of recent years and will continue to be so into the 21st century. Inevitably, recruiting into the British Army will become more difficult as a result.
It is not possible therefore to be definitive at this stage about the future for the Gurkhas after 1997. Major changes in circumstances in the interim, particularly in the size of the British Army as a whole—or developments in the future manning situation—may require us to reconsider. However, on the basis of the information available at present, I have decided that, although the Hong Kong commitment will have ceased, we should plan on a future for the Gurkhas after 1997 based on a viable brigade structure. At present, we see this force being a balance of four Gurkha infantry battalions, squadrons of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, the Queen's Gurkha Signals and the Gurkha Transport Regiment, together with the necessary infrastructure. It would comprise about 4,000 personnel. I would expect the future Gurkha force to have roles that lie within the main stream of the Army's defence commitments, including, as now, a substantial Gurkha presence in the United Kingdom.
There will be a progressive restructuring towards the new force over several years. The timing of these changes will depend on both the commitments and circumstances facing the entire British Army at the time, and, in particular, on the extent to which it is possible to recruit and retain British soldiers within the Army in the face of the demographic difficulties. These difficulties may also lead us to increase the number of Gurkhas to be retained. If necessary this can be considered at a later stage. The present arrangements with the Government of Nepal, whereby Gurkhas are recruited and discharged in Nepal and remain Nepalese citizens at all times, will continue.
No change in the current deployments of Gurkhas is envisaged until withdrawal of a battalion from Hong Kong takes place, which would not be before 1992. No major decisions are needed on the future of this battalion until next year, when we shall have a clearer picture of the impact of demographic trends on army manning.
The House will wish to know that the Government of Nepal have been informed, in advance, of our plans.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that the Gurkhas have served the Crown with distinction since 1815. They have fought alongside British troops in many theatres, including two world wars and the Malayan emergency; and most recently they served in the Falklands campaign. This announcement contains the elements necessary to

demonstrate to the Gurkhas that we are planning for them to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army after our withdrawal from Hong Kong. As such, it will, I am sure, be welcomed by them, by this House and by the country at large.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Despite what the Secretary of State would have us believe, we view with great dismay a real cut in the number of Gurkhas serving in the British Army. There will be a cut of 50 per cent. from 8,071 personnel serving in the Gurkha brigade to 4,000. That is a substantial cut in anyone's terms.
The Secretary of State has presented us with a mess of words and he has not come up with many answers. The number of Gurkha battalions is to be reduced from five to four, and we want to know how he will account for the 4,000 personnel. Are all the Gurkha battalions to consist of three companies rather than four? If so, to what use will the remaining companies be put? Are we to understand that the engineer, signal and transport regiments are to be reduced to mere squadrons? How many personnel are to be lost from these units?
As the Secretary of State has said, from the point of view of tradition and history the Gurkhas have served us well for about 174 years. They served mainly on the Indian subcontinent during the previous century but in this century their battle honours reflect brave service in Europe, the middle east and, more recently, in the Falklands.
Their 13 Victoria crosses, which they have won since 1914, are ample testimony to the loyalty, courage and steadfastness of these great soldiers.
The enlistment of Gurkhas in the British Army has been vital to the economy of their native country of Nepal. It is stated in the admirable report of the Select Committee on Defence on the future of the Gurkha brigade, which was published earlier this year, that the value to Nepal of the British Gurkhas is about £30 million annually. As the report states, that is two and a half times the United Kingdom's overseas aid to Nepal. What proposals do the Government have to replace that? Are there to be further discussions on aid? Rather than inform the Nepalese Government, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Government will have serious discussions with the Nepalese on the imposition of a 50 per cent. cut in the income that they derive from the British Gurkhas?
What will be the future of the British military hospital in Katmandu? We know that it is to be handed over to the Nepalese in 1990, but will the Government carry out their promises of aid and support in the handover period?
The Secretary of State suggested that he was making a "nothing" statement. He seemed to suggest that he could pick things up in future. He seemed to be saying in a rather insulting way to the Nepalese, "You can have your soldiers back home now but when we want to pick them up again in future, we shall do so." I think that it is a shabby statement.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for his tribute to the Gurkhas arid the remarkable service which they have given. I was rather surprised by his reaction to my statement and I think that the Gurkhas will be surprised as well. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Gurkhas' present role is to reinforce security in Hong Kong. We are talking about a position


after 1997 when, by definition, there will be no such role. The maintenance of a Brigade of Gurkhas is a real gesture of our appreciation of what the Gurkhas have done and what they can do in future. It is an enhancement of what is available to the British Army. The statement will be more widely welcomed than the hon. Gentleman seems to think.
I can confirm to the hon. Member that the companies in the battalions which will continue will probably number three instead of four. That will mean that they can match up more easily with the role of the other battalions which they will work alongside in the British Army, which will have three companies.
The squadrons will be reduced from regimental size to independent squadron size although, as I made clear in my statement, the expected figure of 4,000 can and perhaps will be increased when the effect of the demographic factors is considered. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Rhondda said about the economy of Nepal. We are very conscious of that factor because we value our relationship with the Government of Nepal on this matter. We will continue discussion with the Nepalese Government. We have already told the Nepalese Government that the hospital at Dharan—not Katmandu, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said—will be handed over to the Nepalese Government. The Nepalese have welcomed that. As that hospital deals almost entirely with Nepalese civilian patients, that move seems appropriate. We shall help the Nepalese Government to manage the transition and to pay for the handover business. We shall continue discussions with them.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the report of the Select Committee on Defence. The report was immensely helpful and very well researched. I join the hon. Member for Rhondda in thanking all the members of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee, for all their work.

Mr. Michael Mates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while his general announcement about the future of the Gurkhas is welcome, the almost total lack of any detail after such a long delay is difficult to understand? This will still leave much uncertainty and anxiety in the many places that members of the Select Committee on Defence visited during the course of our inquiry where Gurkhas are to be found.
In particular, will my right hon. Friend confirm what I inferred from his reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—that the figure of 4,000 is very much the worst case figure which he thought he should set? Even the detail of reducing from five to four battalions and reducing the companies to three per battalion does not add up if my right hon. Friend says that all the infrastructure—the infantry and supporting arms and services—are to be retained in some form. In that context, is it planned to have a Ghurkha brigade or to merge the Ghurkha troops with British brigades, which would help my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because there would be less infrastructure? How is that to work out?
If more Gurkha soldiers and their families are to be stationed in this country I can state that, from experience of the Gurkha battalion in my constituency, they will be most welcome. Over the past few years they have been

outstanding members of the community and they are extremely welcome wherever they go. I am sure that their brothers who follow from Hong Kong will be just as welcome in this country.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for the work that he and the Select Committee on Defence put into this matter. I appreciate what he says about the detail, which cannot be included in the statement. However, I hope that that will not lead to any feeling of uncertainty among the Gurkhas. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the figure that I announced today of a brigade strength Gurkha regiment with four battalions and a minimum number of 4,000 men is the figure which we definitely expect to be required after 1997. As I made clear in my statement, it may be necessary in due course, if other recruitment falls, to have a rather higher figure. I can confirm that we believe that the minimum viable number is about 4,000, as I have said. We certainly envisage that the battle order of this brigade and the strength of 4,000 allows for three infantry company battalions at full strength with the independent squadrons.
With regard to the brigade structure, there will be a Brigade of Gurkhas with a brigade headquarters for administration. However, the operation of the Gurkha units will be tied in with that of the rest of the British Army according to where the particular units are serving.
With regard to the future and the uncertainty to which my hon. Friend referred, I must state that we are talking about providing in 1989 for a situation which will occur after 1997. With the best will in the world and long-term planning, that is a long time in the future. The fact that we have been able to give this element of assurance—the statement involves a rock-bottom level of assurance—should reassure all those who are concerned about the Gurkhas that we consider that their very valuable service should continue in future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State paid tribute to the Select Committee on Defence and to its First Report on the future of the Gurkhas. Does he accept that his announcement today in reality rejects the Select Committee's conclusions? In particular, on what basis has he rejected the Select Committee's conclusion that
The evidence of the Ministry of Defence gives us no grounds for concluding that a cut in the number of Gurkha infantry battalions is justified"?
Similarly, on what grounds did he reject the Select Committee's recommendation that
there is good reason to suppose that the British Army will need them, in something like their present numbers, well into the 21st century"?
Do the proposals for redeployment involve consideration of a role in the British Army of the Rhine? Are the Gurkhas to be confined to the United Kingdom mainland or will they be available for service throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. However, I do not agree that the statement amounts to any rejection of the report of the Select Committee on Defence. If we had decided to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas at its present full strength of about 8,000 after 1997 when the Hong Kong commitment, which takes up so much of their strength now, had gone, that would have been an enormous enhancement to the forces available to the British Army. I hope that everyone,


including my colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence, will accept that that would have been a very exceptional step to take. We have given a clear signal. Our minimum viable level for the Gurkhas ties in well with the view expressed by the Select Committee.
The roles which the Gurkhas can carry out in future will be broadly similar to those of other battalions in the British Army. However, there are some roles for which the Gurkhas are perhaps not so suitable as other British battalions; in particular, for service in infantry battalions in Northern Ireland where language problems would make them less suitable. However, there are many other roles in the British Army which the Gurkhas fulfil just as well as other battalions and we hope to weld them in there.
There is nothing new with Gurkhas being stationed in the United Kingdom. We aim to continue their present terms and conditions of service as closely as we can.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the majority of the House on his firm commitment to a minimum level of 4,000? However, that figure begs a number of questions. What is the future of the long home leave system? Can we be sure that 15 to 20 per cent. of a Nepalese battalion will still be able to go on long leave, which is essential to maintain their cultural and home ties? Is the present plan likely to affect the arrangement whereby the Ghurkhas carry their own reserves? That is one of the main reasons why the Gurkhas have four companies instead of three. Does he expect that they will be tied into the Territorial Army in some way or to some other organisation?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long and deep interest in the Gurkhas, for his congratulations on the general tenor of the statement. I confirm that we shall keep the long leave system and that the battalions' future strength and obligations will allow sufficient scope for the existing leave system to be continued. The main reason for having the fourth company in Gurkha battalions is their enormously manpower-intensive role on the Hong Kong border. When that role ends, three companies—as in other British battalions—will be more appropriate. The strength of the Gurkha battalions will allow for that three-company set-up still to provide for the essential long leave system that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State should not believe that churlishness causes right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to think that his statement has some of the charactistics of a colander. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must take into account the variables that can arise between now and 1997, and that it makes sense for him to be canny. I do not blame him for that. Perhaps I can plug just one hole in the colander. The Secretary of State will recall that at the time of press speculation and comment when the Select Committee was considering the Gurkhas' future, one school of thought of questionable origin was that the Gurkhas may be suitable for one type of warfare but not for another. I refer not to Northern Ireland but to their role in high tech, modern rapid response situations. The suggestion made in the media was that perhaps the Gurkhas do not think quickly enough. Will the right hon. Gentleman put that argument to bed once and for all and counter it, here and now?

Mr. Younger: Yes, certainly. I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman by countering that suggestion completely. The Gurkhas are not only extremely good soldiers who fought extremely well in many different conditions and theatres, but are clearly very adaptable. I have no doubt that they can cope with any task that they are given.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I warmly congratulate him on making the long-term decision that he has, not just for reasons of recruitment but because—and this is the important factor—it maintains our honourable link with the Gurkhas over a great many years? Looking to the future, will my right hon. Friend give consideration not only to the Gurkhas' roles out of area but to roles that need extra support within NATO itself?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is a long-term decision in the sense that it secures a long-term future for the Gurkhas when their present major role disappears. That is the good side of the long-term decision. The less good side is that it is not possible this far in advance to make detailed pronouncements about precisely where each part of the Gurkhas will serve. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Gurkhas' future roles. They will be available for most general duties throughout the British Army —the same as other infantry battalions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State reflect that Nepal needs help here and now? Without going into the merits of the country's very unfortunate dispute with India, is it not a fact that Nepal's forests are being cut down to provide fuel because that has been denied to the country, and that it is currently in a terrible economic situation? As a token of gratitude for much service, ought not the British Government to do something here and now? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to read my Adjournment debate tomorrow night, on the problems of tropical rain forests when I will describe the ways in which Nepal can be helped, and then discuss it with his hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development?

Mr. Younger: I shall certainly read the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate with great interest and —although I am sure that this will not be necessary—I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. By making further use of the Gurkhas' excellent military skills, we indirectly make a contribution to the Nepalese economy, and we are glad to do so. However, overall responsibility for aiding the Nepalese economy is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas development, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to his attention.

Sir Bernard Braine: All those like yourself, Mr. Speaker, who served in the incomparable Indian Army in the second world war will know of the Gurkhas' legendary qualities, including their steadfastness and their courage. This country owes them a great deal of gratitude. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that one cannot separate soldiers from the society that breeds them? Nepal is basically a very poor country and has a need for economic aid. While we warmly welcome the promise made about the hospital at Dharan, it is not


enough. Can my right hon. Friend say whether continued economic support will be given to Nepal, not in the 1990s but from now on?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's remarks about the enormous respect and gratitude that we all have for the Gurkhas, for what they have done, are doing and will continue to do in helping the British Army in their incomparable way. We want to do all that we can to help our friends in Nepal, in any way that we can. However, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, my role as Secretary of State for Defence is limited to ensuring that the Gurkha element is well organised and properly run. I hope that my statement is reassuring about that aspect. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend's remarks also are drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on ending a period of uncertainty? Nothing is more debilitating than uncertainty. Can my right hon. Friend say more about the future of the Gurkhas, not only in the context of their connection with the United Kingdom but their role in other countries, such as Brunei? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that tributes have been paid by right hon and hon. Members in all parts of the House to the wonderful work that the Gurkhas have done and will continue to do, thank God—and I do not mean that irreverently—in helping us all to maintain a free world? It is gratifying that the whole House unites in paying great tribute to the Gurkhas for that. The truncation of the association is sad, but it is joyful that the link will be continued, albeit on not such a substantial scale as in the past.

Mr. Younger: I strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the ending of uncertainty is important, and something for which all concerned with the Gurkhas have hoped over a considerable period of time. My feeling is that my statement today will do just that. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding the House of the remarkable role that the Gurkha battalion plays in Brunei. The Sultan of Brunei has been informed of the situation, and I am grateful for the hospitality that he extends to the Gurkha battalion in Brunei. It plays a useful role there, and one that we welcome.

Mr. David Nicholson: Together with four other hon. Members and a Member of another place, I was privileged to be in Nepal in January, but under different auspices than the Defence Select Committee. We saw at first hand the significant economic and environmental problems that confront Nepal. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) they are not helped by India's present blockade. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a welcome not only in Nepal but in our constituencies—which attach importance to the Gurkhas' past service—for the care he has taken hitherto and for his close consideration of the points raised today? Is he aware also of the importance that the people of Nepal attach to the hospital at Dharan, and can he give further details about how the British Government will assist its transfer?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and take very seriously the points that he and others have made about the economy of Nepal. To allay some of their anxiety, it is worth repeating that there will be no reduction in the present strength of the Gurkhas until at least 1992, and that the economic benefits of the current set-up will continue until and even after 1997.
Although the hospital has been dealing with military personnel, the overwhelming majority of patients have been civilian, and the Nepalese Government welcome the proposal that it should become a civilian responsibility. British assistance in the running of the hospital will, however, continue for some time, and discussions are in progress about how that should be done.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having served in the army for a short time, let me join those who have paid tribute to the Gurkhas, and those who have welcomed the good news contained in the statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a lesson to be learned from the spirit of the Gurkhas? After all, the loyalty and success of a regiment depends on its local connections and origins. When considering recruitment, will the British Army think of restoring the local links—perhaps even of restoring the county regiments?

Mr. Younger: I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend has said, but—as I am sure he will understand—because the matter affects regiments other than the Gurkhas, it will need to be considered much more carefully on another occasion.

Points of Order

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you of the exchanges in the House on Thursday, which occur in column 487 and 500 of the Official Report? I mentioned the non-availability in the Library of the answer to written question 221, in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I went to the Library at 9·45 pm that day to discover that the answer was still not available. Later that evening I learned that the Secretary of State for Scotland had held a press conference, not in Edinburgh, as I had earlier supposed —not even at Dover house in Whitehall—but, at 2·45 pm, in a ministerial conference room virtually in the Chamber.
We all understand why such things happen, but 1 put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is intolerable that Ministers should arrange for questions to be put down and for answers to be made available to journalists before the time has even come to make them available to Members of the House—and, indeed, that seven hours later, more than six hours after that answer should have been available to Members, it should still not be available to them.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on how you can help hon. Members. That strikes me as a blatant example of gross manipulation of the procedures of the House and of the media, and an insult to hon. Members. We are entitled to be told what is being said, for the benefit of our constituents. It is not dignity that makes me raise the issue, but the fact that on Thursday I was debarred from making any sensible comment, or asking any sensible question, on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in other parts of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I have had an opportunity to look into the matter, and I understand that there was an embargoed Lobby briefing on the Scottish aspect of the statement at 2·45 pm last Thursday. Subsequently the text of a written answer arrived late in the Library, and, I understand, was not available until about 6 pm.
I can only repeat what I have said many times before: I regard it as important for Members to be the first to be informed of any Government announcement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I agree with the points that you have made, Mr. Speaker. It was clear that arrangements to brief the press at the proper time were not made in this case, and I apologise to the House for the error.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the scrutiny of European issues and legislation. There was a time when Council meetings were followed by a statement or private notice question in the House. Since Mr. Delors said that 80 per cent. of our laws would be decided in Brussels, that practice seems to have come to an end, perhaps to prove his point.
Last week the wise men of Europe and the unelected institutions decided what was best for our health and what should he written on the fag packets of the people of the United Kingdom. This may seem a piffling little issue, but many people would want to ask the Government what is Europe's competence in that regard, and whether, if it has no competence, it should be challenged. If it is not to be challenged, what precedence does it have? This is very relevant to the powers of the House in future over health matters. Let me give another small but important example——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into detail. I think that I have got the drift of his point of order, with which I have some sympathy. May I deal with it?
The matter was raised at Prime Minister's Question Time last week. I understand that the Select Committee on Procedure is looking into how we are to deal with EEC matters in future, and until we have that report it is difficult for me to say anything else.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the weekend an important meeting took place in S'Agara to do with financial matters, including taxation, a matter that the House takes very seriously. Various undertakings were given and various documents were signed. We do not know what those documents and undertakings were. I feel that the House should have the opportunity of having a Minister before it to make a statement or perhaps answer a private notice question on such an important matter, so that at this early stage we can examine what is being done. At a later stage it might be quite impossible for the House to uncover the ground that has already been covered.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply concerned that the House should not be bypassed in any way, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will have an opportunity, which he may try to take, to raise the matter at greater length later this afternoon.

Vauxhall By-election

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Vauxhall in the room of Stuart Kingsley Holland, who, since his election for the said constituency, hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham. —[Mr. Foster.]

Mr. Bernie Grant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am becoming concerned when I am cheered from the other side of the House.
I am mindful of the fact that the Spring Adjournment debate is waiting, and I do not wish to deprive my Back Bench colleagues of the chance to raise matters of great import relating to their constituencies, so I shall be as brief as I can.
The Vauxhall constituency contains Brixton and has enormous symbolic importance for black people in the United Kingdom and in the Caribbean, as it was virtually the first place to which they migrated in recent times. Up to 50 per cent. of its inhabitants are estimated to be black and of Caribbean descent, and it is a barometer of black people's progress within the United Kingdom.
The Vauxhall constituency, in the borough of Lambeth, is—regrettably—an area of severe deprivation in every sphere: in education, employment and housing. That was charted in some detail by the right hon. the Lord Scarman OBE in his report "The Brixton Disorders 10–12 April 1981", after his inquiry into those disturbances, which none of us wish to see repeated. Lord Scarman was in no doubt about the level of deprivation and frustration that fuelled them.

Mr. Jerem Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grant: I am sorry, but I must go on.
One of the key aspects of the frustration of black people is their lack of politicial representation. Lord Scarman had this to say about it:
In addition they do not feel politically secure. Their sense of rejection is not eased by the low level of black representation in our elective political institutions. Their sense of insecurity is not relieved by the liberty our law provides to those who march and demonstrate in favour of tougher immigration controls and 'repatriation' of the blacks.

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grant: No.
Rightly or wrongly, young black people do not feel politically secure, any more than they feel economically or socially secure.

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grant: No. [HON. MEMBERS:"Give way."] Since the Scarman report, black people in Vauxhall and in other parts of the country have seized the political initiative and elected a substantial number of black local councillors. They have also elected or appointed black leaders of local councils. In doing so, they have shown their determination to use the political system rather than other means to redress their disadvantage.
That has not been easy, because the present Government have taken a number of steps in order to

disfranchise black people. Some Lambeth councillors have been disbarred from office over rate capping. The Local Government and Housing Bill that is going through Parliament at this moment will make it even more difficult for black people to be selected as parliamentary candidates and to become councillors. The positive action programmes that have been put in hand by the local authority in Lambeth to ease the disadvantage of the black communities have been vilified by the press and the media and by some Ministers. Despite that, however, substantial progress has been made. The people of Vauxhall, particularly the black people, therefore feel that the next step should perhaps be a black Member of Parliament to represent them in this House.
It might have been expected, knowing the background to the Vauxhall constituency, that the major political parties would think it appropriate to field candidates who could reflect that deeply felt need for black representation at the highest political level. Having been to Vauxhall, I know that a substantial number of black people there having a sense of rejection and resentment at the fact that this opportunity was not seized by at least one political party.
People have asked why it is necessary to have a black Member of Parliament for Vauxhall; could not a white Member of Parliament do the job just as well? In answering that question, I have to point out that it is quite well established in the Labour party and in progressive circles—I almost said "and in other progressive circles" —that the principle that sections of society should represent themselves is paramount and that Parliament should reflect a cross-section of society, but that principle seems to have been rejected in Vauxhall. The main reason why sections of society should represent themselves is because only those who come from particularly disadvantaged sections of society—who have experienced the oppression, the frustration and the degradation that they feel—can understand precisely what is at stake with regard to policies that affect them.
To quote an example, I am unable to produce a child. Some say that that might happen in the future, but it is not possible now. Therefore, I cannot possibly know how women feel about child bearing because I am not a woman. In the Labour party, trade unionists represent trade unions. It would be silly and a nonsense if I were to try to represent young people in society. There is a clearly established principle that the people who are directly affected should represent themselves. In the two recent by-elections in Wales, the candidates had to be Welsh and Welsh-speaking. I support that principle. Local conditions should determine who is selected and positive action should be taken to ensure that people are properly represented.
It is a pity that the parties in Vauxhall did not adopt the principles that were adopted when the candidates for the Welsh by-elections were selected. The imposition of a candidate in Vauxhall is to be deplored. If President Gorbachev had imposed candidates during the recent elections in the Soviet Union, everybody would have been up in arms. In the United Kingdom, however, political parties can impose candidates without a qualm. What particularly concerns me about the imposition of this candidate is the fact that there was a particularly good field of black candidates from which to choose. They were candidates of all political persuasions. Some of the


candidates were to the Left; some candidates were hard Left. A clear choice could have been made among the black candidates who put themselves forward.
One reason has been given for the non-selection of some of the black candidates who were selected by the local Labour party: that they were seen to be controversial. If one is a black politician worth one's salt, one has to be controversial, because this is a racist society.
Any black person who attempts to represent black people and put forward black issues properly will be torn apart by the media. If uncontroversial black candidates put themselves forward, they will not be capable of being selected because they will be politically inexperienced and naive and they will certainly not have been involved in raising black issues in the public forum. To expect a non-controversial black candidate to be selected is therefore nonsense.
It is unacceptable, too, that the excuses given for not selecting a black candidate have been publicly expressed in personal terms. The candidates were called "simple." There were other patronising terms. The candidates who were involved in the selection process are experienced. At least one is the leader of a local authority. Another candidate is the deputy leader of a local authority. Other candidates have been councillors for 10 years or more. The calibre of the candidates who put themselves up for selection was of the best. They would have represented any political party with dignity.
The failure to select a black candidate for the Vauxhall by-election will have certain consequences. At the moment there is a lack of representation in the House. Four Members of Parliament out of 650 are black. There are about 50 women Members of Parliament; there may be even fewer. Blacks and women are virtually in the same position. About eight times as many black parliamentarians should be here, and about eight times as many women should be here, too. Given the particular issues involved in Vauxhall, at least one political party ought to have acted positively and selected a black candidate.
I fear that the consequences will be these. There will be a loss of faith in the political system and in the political parties. Black and other minority people will set up separate organisations. If political parties will not allow black people a place in Parliament, black people will find other ways in which to make their voices heard. They will organise separately in areas where they live in numbers and take votes away from those who neglect them. They will join other communities—for example the Moslems—in a broad coalition against racism.
Once again, I quote Lord Scarman's report.[Laughter] I hear some guffaws from Conservative Members. The Government might feel that they have been left out of my speech, but responsibility lies with them and other political parties. Lord Scarman said:
There is a lack of a sufficiently well co-ordinated and directed programme for combating the problem of racial disadvantage. Unless a a clear lead is given by Government, in this area as in others, there can be no hope of an effective response. The evidence I have received suggests that the black community in Britain are still hoping for such a lead, although they are cynical about what they see as the previous lack of response from all governments of whatever persuasion. If their hopes are again dashed, there is a real danger that cynicism will turn into open hostility and rejection. This must not be allowed to happen.
Tomorrow's Opposition day debate on inner cities gives the Government an opportunity to say where they stand with the black community in Britain. It provides an

opportunity for the Opposition to state clearly and categorically, following the fiasco in Vauxhall, their policies with regard to black and other minority communities. Unless both sides of the House make such clear and unequivocal statements, I fear that black people in Britain will feel that, once again, they can have no truck with and no faith in this parliamentary democracy.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): In recent months, I have had cause several times to state the conventions relating to by-elections. The House will by now be well aware that it is customary for the Chief Whip of the party which last held the seat to move the writ for the by-election, and to do so within three months of the vacancy occurring. This is what is happening today and there can be no objection to it. Stuart Holland applied for the Chiltern Hundreds on 18 May. It is in the interests of the people of Vauxhall that they be represented again in the House as soon as possible. The method of selection of the candidates by the parties involved in the by-election is not the responsibility of the House; I therefore hope the House will now support the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Ian Gow: I declare an interest in this matter, since I live in the Vauxhall constituency.
I am not the only hon. Member of this place who lives in that constituency. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is in his place, and he too lives in the Vauxhall division. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) is also a constituent of the late doctor [HON. MEMBERS: "Late doctor?"] The former doctor. [HON. MEMBERS: " Former?"] The former Member of this place. Not only Conservative Members were constituents of our late colleague; the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), those two heroines of the Left, also live in the Vauxhall division.
The arguments as to whether you, Mr. Speaker, should issue your writ for this by-election are finely balanced, ft is arguable that the people of Vauxhall need much longer to recover from the shock of the departure of their Member of Parliament.
I have been studying, as you will have been studying, Mr. Speaker, the achievements of our former colleague. He was the author of "The Socialist Challenge." He was also the author of a remarkable work, which some of my hon. Friends have committed to memory, called "The State as Entrepreneur". This breathtaking contradiction in terms was no mystery to our late colleague, because he was a frequent visitor to many overseas lands. I find that he made a journey to Moscow when the House was sitting in October 1987, a further journey to Moscow when the House was sitting in February last year, and another journey to Moscow in November of last year, again when the House was sitting. At least there was one advantage for our late colleague's constituents; we were not troubled frequently by visits from him in the constituency—he was too busy making these journeys.
It will be a source of satisfaction to you, Mr. Speaker, that our former colleague has taken up an appointment which is funded by the European Economic Community. We understand that he has taken up an appointment at the


university of Florence on a salary designated in European currency units, which is not a currency beloved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The equivalent would be £40,000 a year, and it attracts European rates of taxation.
Our former colleague is to be head of the economic and industrial development unit at the university, and no teaching commitments are involved. That will be a matter of some relief to those at the university. In addition to his duties at Florence university, we are told he is a part-time speech writer for Mr. Delors, which gives added justification to some of the criticisms made of Mr. Delors by Her Majesty's Ministers. We are also told that he is a part-time speech writer to the present leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) spoke about the selection procedures of his party. I have already explained to the House that in November of last year our former colleague attended a conference in Moscow. A fortnight after he left the capital of the Soviet Union a new text was issued, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, entitled, "Soviet Constitutional Reform", which was issued on 7 December last year and is relevant to the procedures of the Labour party. I shall read the opening sentences of this massive work:
Elections of people's deputies…shall take place in single-seat constituencies on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.
There are precisely the same arrangements for general elections in the Soviet Union as we have here, but here are the changes made in the Soviet Union in December of last year:
A meeting"—
that is, a meeting to select a candidate—
shall be quorate"—
that is a rather strange translation, meaning that there shall be a quorum—
if it is attended by at least 500 voters living in the territory of the constituency.

Ms. Clare Short: Is it important?

Mr. Gow: That point was raised not by me but by the hon. Member for Tottenham.
The new rules laid down in Russia continue:
A candidate shall be considered nominated if more than one-half of the participants at the meeting or a majority of the total membership of the relevant body of a social organisation vote for him.
There follow the key words:
The participants in the constituency election meeting shall be delegated by the work collectives"—
words loved by the Left.
At least one-half of the participants of the meeting must be voters from that constituency.
That is the key passage.
In Vauxhall, the local comrades wanted to choose their own candidate. They chose a candidate who was black, who was a women and who was a unilaterialist. That choice was overthrown by the central hierarchy of the Labour party. Such an overthrow of local decision making would never have happened in the Conservative party—[Interruption.] On the contrary, in the Conservative party, each local association is autonomous, and it is a tribute to the judgment of those associations that we have such excellent Members. So we do not have the same problem as exists in the Labour party.
I was rather saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham. He seemed to be telling the house that there should be in this place in proportion to the total population an equivalent number of Jews, Roman Catholics, Asians or Africans. I disagree fundamentally with that proposition. It is perfectly possible for a Roman Catholic Member of Parliament to represent Protestants and atheists. It is perfectly possible for a European Member of Parliament to represent those who are Asian or African and it is perfectly possible for a Jewish Member of Parliament to represent adequately, honestly and honourably those who do not belong to the Jewish faith.

Mr. John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gow: I have almost finished my speech.
The sense of shock about the departure of our late colleague is real among the electorate. It might be wise if we were to postpone for a short time the by-election, not least so that further consideration can be given to the excellent points raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of speaking and I shall speak for only three or four minutes. We had better get one thing right. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has misled the House on a very important point by saying that the constituency party in Vauxhall had already selected a candidate. That is not true. I do not agree with the decision of my national executive in imposing the candidate, but it is not true that that constituency party had already appointed or selected a candidate. The argument is whether or not the constituency party was allowed to choose one of the candidates who had been nominated or were likely to be nominated. However, I want to put it on record that it is not true that the constituency party had already decided on the candidate. It has not yet reached that stage.
I do not agree with my executive, but the rules are being applied. I did not agree with those rules when they were introduced. The Labour party now lays it down that the national executive can decide the candidate in a by-election. I do not agree with that. I did not agree with it at the time, and I do not agree with it now, but the Labour party has not gone outside the rules, whether or not we agree with the rules.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne always makes amusing speeches in the House.

Ms. Short: No, he does not.

Mr. Heffer: I have always thought that all his speeches are very funny. They are some of the funniest speeches I have ever heard. That does not mean that they have a great deal of content, but they are very funny. I thought that he made quite an interesting speech.
Finally, I appeal to my hon. Friends to consider the local position. In the last analysis, it is vital that the candidate should be decided by members of a local party. Looking back at the history of the Labour party in my city of Liverpool, I do not think that we ever put up a Roman Catholic in a Protestant ward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it was felt that that might not be politically wise. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will listen for a moment, after a number of years that was changed by the


rank and file in the constituencies, who decided to put up a candidate whether that candidate was Protestant or Roman Catholic, and that has been the position for a long time. The people in Vauxhall should decide the issue, and candidates should not be imposed from outside.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Just briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred to the late candidate. If by late he means that he missed the bus, my hon. Friend is wrong. He was early, he got on the gravy train and he has no problems at all. He is an absconding candidate. It is only a shame that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here with his encylopaedic knowledge of the perks, the privileges, the financial sustenance that goes with membership of these various European bodies, because I am sure that he would point out to the House the benefits that the previous Member for Vauxhall is taking for himself by turning his back on his constituents and absconding to Europe.
An important point of principle has been touched upon. The candidate that we now apparently have, if the by-election goes ahead as is currently scheduled, has been imposed on the constituency by the party leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has said, under powers which have been surrendered by the Supreme Soviet itself. I ask whether it is a matter of parliamentary privilege that these bullying tactics should be applied to one small constituency in London in such a graphic and heavy-handed way.
Finally, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) classifying people by their colour and the rest of it, but I have some sympathy with his speech. This is a wonderful democracy that we live in. If the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes that the largest grouping, the largest level of support in the constituency of Vauxhall, would come from black people who also happen to be Socialist—and that is their choice—I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the sensible thing to do, the proper thing to do and the democratic thing to do would be to have such a candidate who could secure the maximum of that support. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, on mature consideration, if he feels that that is what the people of Vauxhall want, it would be quite wrong if there were not a black Socialist candidate standing in that constituency.

Mr. John Bowis: I should like to underline one or two of the points that have been made. It is clear from all the speeches that, whatever happens in Vauxhall, the electorate will not be presented with a Labour candidate selected by the Vauxhall constituency. On that, I have every sympathy with the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). The lists produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) of his fellow constituents in Vauxhall did not include the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I am not sure why the Leader of the Opposition should have a say in choosing the candidate.
I can underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne about how sadly the former hon. Member for Vauxhall is missed by his constituents. He has been missed for some time. I represent the constituency bordering Vauxhall and, time and again, my mail includes letters from his constituents. Time and again people, both black and white, come to my surgery asking me to take up matters affecting the Vauxhall constituency. Why is that? Have they been unable to find a Clapham bus that goes to Florence?

Mr. Gow: Or Moscow.

Mr. Bowis: Indeed, but there may be quicker ways of getting to Moscow than on the Clapham bus.
There is a further point that we should consider before allowing the writ to proceed. That is whether an enormous amount of public money and the time of public servants might be wasted if the by-election went ahead with the imposed Labour candidate. Let us suppose that, despite the efforts of the multifarious elements in the Labour party, the candidate were to win, is there any precedent for such a candidate being deselected within a week?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Vauxhall in the room of Mr. Stuart Kingsley Holland who, since his election for the said constituency, bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.

Spring Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 26th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6th June.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. John Biffen: I have no wish to contest the motion before the House. However, there could be a case for returning on 6 November since there would be enormous advantages in that. The Government would not have to face the grevious disability of the House sitting during July, which is when most crises arise and most misjudgments are made. We would all have a good chance of escaping to our constituencies and, in the process, we would lose an entire Session of Parliament. I suspect that that is the only way in which the House can slow down the relentless load of legislation which runs to the detriment of good government in this country.
However, I want to use this occasion for the more modest and traditional purpose of raising a constituency matter—the Health Service in north Shropshire. I make this point in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House because the topic of the two proposed hospital closures—the Oswestry and district hospital and the Newport cottage hospital—is one of ambiguity. On Oswestry and district hospital there is a question of judicial challenge, and the closure of the cottage hospital has not yet been confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He has said that he will meet a delegation before reaching a judgment. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should direct my remarks to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I respectfully request an answer in a letter after due reflection. I also ask that the matter is not referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, for the reasons I have given.
Both hospitals have a great record of service to their local community. Both, by general judgment in Shropshire, perform their task remarkably well and they are served by the inspired work of all the medical staff. It is a classic example of where the judgment of the community is outraged by what is proposed. I have no doubt that part of the difficulty comes from the central underfunding of the Health Service. That is probably the major cause of the proposed closures. There is no doubt that there is a related factor—the judgment of Birmingham regional health authority.
I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a new and developing fact. With the publication of the White Paper, "Working for Patients" we now have the idea of self-governing hospitals. I accept that one cannot draw a neat analogy with the education service, but the development of Whitehall-funded schools is not unlike the proposals for self-governing hospitals.
I wish to see—I believe that it is broad Government policy—a range of self-governing hospitals from the great teaching hospitals to the modest-sized cottage hospitals and all that fall within that spectrum. The hospitals currently under threat because of decisions within the regions should not be snuffed out before having a chance to make their case for self-governing status. It is a modest request but it is highly practical. It was inspired by the fact that so many of the schools that have been granted special Whitehall funding status were confronted by closure

proposals. This modest request and the emollient answer it seeks would be well received by me and by a range of political opinion in rural Shropshire.
Currently, there is a spasm of interest in the European Community, with the prospect of the elections on 15 June. Many can convulse themselves into believing that there will be a relationship between the fevered discussions at Westminster and Fleet street and the pattern of voting. Such a consideration leads them to believe that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would bestow his effusive charms as wholeheartedly in support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as she so uncritically supported him when he was Prime Minister, it would be a powerful weapon for Tory fortunes. In my judgment, anything we can do to repair our fortunes and give us the initiative in the health debate would do infinitely more than that—even though, as far as I can judge, that does not have the slightest relevance to the Delors package or anything else.
I make this plea in the broadest and most general political sense. If we are to give a good start to the prospect of self-governing hospitals—it is the topic in the White Paper most likely to confer upon us some sense of initiative —there could be nothing better than that prosepct being held out for the two hospitals in my constituency to which I have referred.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I believe that the House should not adjourn until hon. Members have discussed the growing scandal of the treatment of nuclear test veterans.
It is 40 years since 26,000 British service men participated in British nuclear tests, 14,000 of whom witnessed tests at Monte Bello islands off north-west Australia, Maralinga and Emu in south Australia and Christmas and Malden islands in the Pacific. The Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, of which I am the patron, has been fighting for compensation for years, but so far without success.
I want to direct my remarks to the Prime Minister, although I am glad that the Leader of the House is listening. I have given up hope with the Ministry of Defence, given the deplorable attitude that it has displayed over the years. The Prime Minister claims to have a high regard for service personnel and ex-service men. I do not doubt that for a moment, but she should take a hard look at the way in which the Ministry of Defence is behaving compared with its equivalent in the United States.
In view of the Prime Minister's close friendship with ex-President Reagan, she should compare his utterances about American nuclear test veterans with her own. When signing an Act that provided compensation to American nuclear test veterans one year and two days ago, President Reagan said:
The Act gives due recognition to the unusual service rendered by Americans who participated in military activities involving exposure to radiation generated by the detonation of atomic explosives. The nation is grateful for their special service, and enactments of (the law) make clear the nation's concern for their continued welfare.
In stark and harsh contrast, the Prime Minister said to me:
The cause and effect that he says has been proved has not been proved, and therefore compensation is not appropriate." —[Official Report, 9 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 723.]
Hon. Members must ask which words and which actions show regard for ex-service personnel. When I


asked the Ministry of Defence on 16 may what advice it had about the genetic effects of radiation exposure, it said that although there was some evidence that radiation caused genetic defects in animals, there was no "conclusive" evidence of any genetic damage that had been passed on to children of nuclear test veterans. That is how the mind of the Ministry of Defence works. It denies compensation because there is no "conclusive" evidence, but that is rarely, if ever, available. The intelligent and reasonable approach must be to decide on the balance of probabilities. That method has been adopted by the United States but not by Britain, to the shame of Britain and the Government.
The Act signed by President Reagan compensated atomic veterans who were suffering, or who had died, from leukaemia or thyroid cancer, regardless of exposure level. It automatically compensated for cancers of the small intestine, stomach, liver, bile ducts, gall bladder and pancreas, together with lymphomas and multiple myleoma where more than one rem of exposure was established. No cut-off period for the appearance of cancer was established, although all claims must be filed by the end of 1991.
Naturally, the House is the forum for British parliamentarians, but for a few moments I wish to place on record some of the views of United States senators. In a debate on American nuclear test veterans, Senator Daschle of South Dakota said:
The scientific evidence strongly suggests a link between the exposure and the diseases listed in HR1811. Some say that we lack definitive proof. How long will we wait for that proof? Will we wait until all these veterans are dead? Are we so afraid of making a mistake in favour of the veterans—of extending benefits when they are not deserved—that we are willing to risk making the opposite mistake of denying benefits to deserving veterans?
Those important questions should be pondered by the Prime Minister.
Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia made an acerbic comment that could be interpreted as an indictment of the Ministry of Defence. He said:
I really think it is somewhat incredulous that we are even debating compensation to atomic veterans, people who could not be more deserving … for 40 years ad nauseam we have studied this problem, spent millions of dollars, US taxpayers' dollars, to do studies, and none for the atomic veterans. I think that is wrong. I think it is time to bring an end to the research and to the injustice and to respond with recognition and compassion to what these people went through in the line of duty at the orders of the US Government in the service that they were constitutionally sworn to obey. We know enough to act.
Those senators were supporting a Bill proposed by Senator Cranston of California, which provided for the payment of compensation for 13 cancers, compared with the payment for none by the Ministry of Defence. Senator Cranston said:
I believe that this measure is … both a compassionate and fiscally responsible response to the serious and continuing needs and concerns of the radiation-exposed veterans and their families. For them it is simple justice. For us, it is a fulfilment of our responsibilities to veterans injured and injured wrongly through service to our country.
Parliament is as proud of its armed forces as the United States Senate is of its service men and women. The difference is that the United States has taken positive, reasonable and compassionate action on behalf of their nuclear test veterans; we have not. It is paying

compensation; we are not. I hope that the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence and hon. Members will take note and act accordingly.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should like to raise three issues with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before the House rises for the spring Adjournment.
I make no apology for again raising the issue of drug misuse. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have had an Adjournment debate and have asked several questions about this subject. I am sure that he is aware that what causes me most concern is why money confiscated from drug barons cannot be used by the police in the fight against drugs. I cannot understand why a system that works extremely well in the United States cannot be used in Britain. I remind my right hon. Friend that within the past two months at least £4,300,000 has been taken from the profits of convicted drug offenders. Instead of that money being given to fight the battle against drugs, it goes straight into the Treasury.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the leader column in the Daily Mail on Saturday 20 May:
Two years ago the Metropolitan Police were offered a £16 million reward by the Americans for their help in smashing an international drug ring. They were unable to accept it because of the condition that the money was used in the fight against crime. That was forbidden under the rules of the Home Office, which feared that such an arrangement would result in some forces benefiting more than others.
Yet it seems right that the police should reap some advantage from their successes. A House of Commons Select Committee has now come up with a suggestion. Let the cash go to Bramshill police college, Hampshire, and then the whole force will gain. A model answer to a knotty problem—and with a bit of Thatcherite incentive thrown in.
It seems that the Home Affairs Select Committee—the Select Committee to which the leader referred—and both sides of the House greet the idea with approval. Only the Home Office seems to be out of step. I hope that, before the House rises for the recess, my right hon. Friend will give me the good news that the money will be put to good use in battling against the drug barons in the war against drugs.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the leader in today's Daily Mail—I am sorry to quote the Daily Mail twice, but it just shows how well-read I am. The leader states:
This morning we publish an impassioned and authoritative plea for the British Government to back an international ban on the ivory trade. It comes from Richard Leakey, the renowned anthropoligist who has recently been appointed to head Kenya's Wildlife and Conservation Management Department.
At least four African countries, Kenya included, demand that the elephant be listed as one of this globe's most endangered species and hence eligible for complete protection from commercial exploitation. The United States has also joined the campaign. But not Britain. Not yet.
Our Government, the Commons was told at the end of last week, is still thinking about it.
The elephant poachers are not pondering. They are continuing to kill elephants at the rate of 300 a day.
We urge the Prime Minister to procrastinate no longer. Here is an opportunity for her to lead the European Community on an issue of anguished concern to millions of its people.
This matter was raised in business questions on Thursday by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr.


Banks). I was not altogether happy with the reply by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Daily Mail leader said:
The United States has also joined the campaign. But not Britain. Not yet.
Why not? I hope that my right hon. Friend can answer that point before the House rises.
A dog registration scheme is needed as well. There are 6·8 million dogs in Britain and we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers. I have to say that the more I see of some people, the more I love my dogs. We are told that in 1986 more than 240,000 dogs were officially registered as strays by police in England and Wales. Only about 25 per cent. were claimed back by their owners.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I do not know whether there is a great difference between Ulster dogs and English dogs. The Government have introduced a registration scheme for Northern Ireland dogs—Protestant as well as Roman Catholic dogs—but seem to think that a registration scheme in England is not necessary. That shows their lack of knowledge. I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: My hon. Friend has taken the end of my speech from me. I was going to raise that point. At least 90,000 dogs were destroyed because homes could not be found for them. The total number of dogs, including registered strays, destroyed each year is more than 350,000—about 1,000 healthy dogs a day.
Despite a great campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, there are still far too many people who take on a dog without thinking things through. No doubt, at Christmas they think that it is nice to have a cuddly little pet that the children can play with, but after a while they get sick of it—perhaps it does a bit of damage—perhaps it grows up, and then it is just thrown out.
Dog abuse has increased to record levels. None of this fits our image as a nation of animal lovers. The RSPCA's figures for 1987 show that there were more than 1,800 convictions for neglect, starvation and permanent chaining. I have never been able to understand people who are cruel to either animals or small children—that is past my comprehension. Unfortunately, it happens, and I am sickened when I read some of those cases in our newspapers.
Part of our problem is the difficulty of identifying a dog's owner. The requirement is that a dog should have a name tag, but people ignore that. The chances are that a dog that is roaming has no collar and therefore no tag. Often caring owners put tags on their dogs and sometimes the tags get lost. If all dogs were registered and an element of that registration required that the dog was identifiable by a permanent tag, tattoo, electronic implant or other suitable method, owners could be identified. Any caring dog owner who has lost his dog knows the agony that is suffered. A few years ago, our labrador strayed and the agony that was felt in our house all the time that it was lost and the relief the next day when we got a telephone call to say that it was safe can be appreciated only by someone who cares about dogs.
I cannot understand why the Government are so loth to act on this important issue. A recent opinion poll showed that amazingly 82 per cent. of the public were in favour of

taking action. I do not think that many people would support a return to the old dog licence—it cost more to administer than was gained in receipts—but when it was abolished the Government put nothing better in its place. We need a scheme to fund the dog warden service and deter the unthinking, uncaring dog owner.
Registration would assist in identifying the dog and its owner, and indentification is essential if the law is to be enforced and stray dogs returned to their owners. As I said earlier, if the United States can use drug money to fight the drug menace, why cannot we? If in France tattooing is used to identify dogs, in Ireland—I am talking not about Ulster, but about the Republic—silicon implants are used and in the United States technology is widely used, why cannot we do the same?

Mr. John Carlisle: Many of us have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's advocacy of the registration scheme. Will he explain whether he is anxious that such a scheme should be administered by the Government—that is what he seems to be telling the House—or by local authorities? Is there not a dichotomy? Most of the letters that we have received plead for the Government to act. Why should not local authorities take responsibility, as some are doing, by using dog wardens?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I have very caring hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) have prejudged my comments. I was coming to exactly that point.
An Environment Minister recently saw members of the RSPCA who gathered from the Minister that the Department of the Environment thought that this issue had nothing to do with the Department and was a matter for local authorities.

Mr. Kilfedder: Passing the buck.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree; it is a classic example of passing the buck. The Department seems to believe that local authorities have the power to introduce byelaws. Local authorities are anxious to do what they can—about 200 of them already employ dog wardens—but they find it hard to enforce byelaws without a link between dog and owner. The registration scheme would provide that link.
If this proposal were accepted, it would not necessitate an increase in public expenditure. Implementation of section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988 is all that is required. I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of early-day motion 348, which is supported by all parties and has been signed by about 250 Members. It shows the strength of feeling in the House on this issue.
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties could testify that their constituency postbags also show that there is a great deal of public support for this scheme. I hope, therefore, that before the House rises for the spring recess, we shall have a statement on when the Government will ensure that confiscated drug assets are used in the fight against drugs, that we shall know what the Government's response will be to backing an international ban on the ivory trade and that we shall know why the Government are refusing to be more positive in ensuring a dog registration scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down said earlier, a similar scheme operates in Northern Ireland, where it seems to work well. The director of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says:
Not only are dogs looked after better but fewer are suffering from irresponsible and uncaring dog owners.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies, he will be able to explain why the Government are being so intransigent over those three issues.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I want to raise the issue of ticket touting, which has become a disturbing and disfiguring feature of the music and entertainment industry in the west end of London and now, unhappily, of major sporting events throughout the United Kingdom. The powers of the police in this matter are extremely limited. The police are entitled to arrest a ticket tout for obstruction but, by and large, the tariff of fine imposed by magistrates is about £50 and in the case of a first offender, it may be rather less. Such a fine operates as little disincentive to a ticket tout who may stand to make many hundreds of pounds in an afternoon's work. Ticket touts deface the streets surrounding many theatres and opera houses, and members of the public are frequently deceived as to the true value of the tickets they have purchased.
Tourists are a particular target, and the reputation of London's west end theatre suffers as a consequence. In The Times on 11 February 1989, Patrick O'Hanlon reported on an investigation carried out at the instance of Westminster city council. It said:
Victims were most frequently from the United States, Canada and Europe. A couple from Canada paid £80 each to the concierge at their hotel for two tickets for The Phantom of the Opera. The tickets had a face value of £21. The largest example of overcharging uncovered was £130 paid for each of two tickets with a face value of £19 for Les Misérables, a mark-up of approximately 600 per cent'.
The survey confirmed that foreign visitors were the most likely to be overcharged and the report said:
This has important implications for tourism. Why should tourists pay more for the same product?
The issue of ticket touts is even more pressing in relation to sport. Wimbledon will soon be upon us and, once again, one of the world's greatest sporting events will be disfigured by ticket touting. People who attended the Calcutta cup match at Twickenham this year will know that to reach their seats in the stadium, it was at times necessary almost to push ticket touts aside bodily. In spite of the best efforts of the Rugby Football Union, it appears that tickets allocated to a school somehow found their way into the hands of others with rather more commercial instincts.
It is in the context of football that the issue of ticket touting requires the most urgent consideration by the House. Witnesses at Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry last week made it plain that the existence of ticket touts and the opportunity to buy tickets at the ground encourage supporters who do not have tickets to attend some football matches. That makes it clear that the activities of ticket touts now have a direct influence on the safety of spectators at major football matches.
Most hon. Members regard ticket touting as morally reprehensible. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), in a reply to my question about 10 days ago,

described the practice as "obnoxious". It is obnoxious that, on the day that Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster opened, ticket touts were selling £30 tickets for the cup final—which was a remarkable display of skill and ability on Saturday—at £250 each. If ever there was a clear example of a willingness by people with no love for or interest in that occasion to exploit the special nature of a sporting occasion, that is it.
There is a brazenness about ticket touts which passes most understanding. One ticket tout told a reporter from the Daily Express, in an article that appeared in the northern edition on Monday 15 May 1989, that he was rather disturbed by the fact that people were exploiting the cup final between Everton and Liverpool. However, he then said:
Anyway, I can always pull it back a bit by putting even more on the price of Wimbledon tickets.
There is brazenness and an inability to understand how offensive such acts are.
Even some hon. Members claim that ticket touting is merely an exercise in market forces. If that is so, that exercise should be repugnant and obnoxious to anyone with any sensibility. It is now clear that ticket touting may be an important adverse factor in the safety of spectators at football matches. In the evidence heard in the past week by Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry, the link has been clearly proved. As a matter of extreme urgency, we should have a statement from the Government on that before we go off on holiday.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), because we share a certain affinity and love for sport. I hope that he will remain in his place to hear my few remarks which are on the same subject, although from a different angle. In this wide-ranging debate, I want to talk about a subject of which I may have inadvertently given my right hon. Friend notice in business questions last Thursday—the basis of the Government's attitude to international sport and, in particular, the Government's attitude to sporting relations with South Africa.
As my right hon. Friend will remember, I was somewhat disturbed to learn last Thursday that the three Ministers responsible for sport in England, Wales and Scotland had sent a strongly worded statement to the secretaries of the Rugby Football Union, the Scottish Rugby Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, saying that they should pass on any invitations that might be received from the South African Rugby Board for the forthcoming centenary celebrations on the basis that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport said, should British players accept those invitations, it would have an effect on the future of the Commonwealth games and British competition in sport throughout the world.
It was a sad day when Ministers of the Crown began to take the attitude that players who exercise complete freedom of choice—in this case, they are amateurs who are under no contract of employment and do not have binding business commitments to any employer, as professional sportsmen do—should be not only discouraged, but almost banned from accepting such invitations, although they are entitled to accept them. Many Conservative Members question the Government's wisdom. The Government advocate, rightly, that we should continue


our economic ties with South Africa, yet they ban those who want to go to that country to play sport from doing so. Many of us find that argument difficult to understand.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to our common interest in sporting matters. However, our views are diametrically opposed on the topic he is raising today. Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that it is legitimate for the Minister for Sport and for the Secretary of State for Scotland to draw to the attention of the Rugby Unions the consequence for other sportsmen and, in particular, those who have aspirations to compete in the Commonwealth Games, if the invitations to which he has referred are taken up by individual rugby players?

Mr. Carlisle: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about his connection with South Africa. Indeed, he is a man of great sporting prowess himself. The objection that I was making to the move of my hon. Friend was on the basis—as reported by The Daily Telegraph on Thursday —that it
would strongly discourage taking action that would facilitate sporting contact with South Africa".
Under the Gleneagles agreement, a declaration on sport that was not signed by this Administration or by any previous Conservative Administration, the Government have a commitment without force of law to point out to those sporting authorities the possible effects of such action. However, it is not the business of any Minister of the Crown to try to put any pressure on the players or the sporting bodies of what is still a legitimate occupation. If it were illegal to play sport against South Africa—or to smoke—it would be a different story.
Therefore, in view of his party's history and his own participation in sporting events, I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East believes that the time has come for Governments to interfere in the selection of sportsmen and sportswomen, whatever country they are playing against. This whole question has arisen at a particularly interesting time——

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman again now, although perhaps I shall later if he still wishes to intervene.
This whole question has arisen at a particularly interesting time, given that, only 10 days ago, on the Saturday before last, when the England rugby team played against Romania, a country that has been castigated with equal vehemence by members of the royal family, the Prime Minister and hon. Members of all parties, not one voice of protest was heard, either from within the Chamber or from outside. Nothing was heard from those anti-sporting bodies that set themselves up to object to sport with South Africa.

Mr. Campbell: rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman later, although I must get on. He must accept that many people find it extremely strange that we can —and I believe that we should—play rugby against a country from behind the Iron Curtain of which there has been such recent vilification in the House, with Oppostion

Members using the phrase "that vile regime", but that not one word of protest against that sporting link was raised either by the hon. Gentleman's party, the Labour party or the Government and the party to which I belong.

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he try to distinguish in his own mind, for the benefit of the House, between the actions of the Minister for Sport last week when he wrote to the Rugby Football Union and the actions of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister towards the British Olympic Association in 1980?

Mr. Carlisle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue before the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) does so, because that will save another intervention. I agree that at that time many Conservative Members felt unhappy, just as my hon. Friend the then Minister for Sport must have felt unhappy, about the objection of the Government of the day, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, towards our teams going to Moscow. I have said before and I shall say again that probably the silliest political mistake that I have made was in following my right hon. Friend and my Government colleagues through the Lobby that evening. I have always said that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
On other matters, I am totally behind my hon. Friends who are responsible for sport; my argument with them is purely on this point, but it is regrettable that they have now aligned themselves to various bodies in the anti-South African brigade which they must find strange bedfellows.
Only an hour or so ago, as I came into the House, I met Mr. Sam Ramsamy who is the general secretary of SANROC, the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee, who is a charming man. He is a South African who has not been near the place for 15 years because he keeps refusing to go there. He runs an organisation that works on the theory that we should not have normal sport in an abnormal society. However, Mr. Ramsamy has found the ground somewhat cut away from him now because the founding father of that organisation, Dr. Dennis Brutus, who has reappeared miraculously from America, and who is a man of far greater stature than Mr. Ramsamy, is now beginning to say that, because of the great advance that has been made in the system of sport in South Africa—in so far as sport can advance within the system of apartheid—we should now be looking towards some form of contact. However, Mr. Ramsamy and SAN ROC continue to peddle the anti-South African line, being fuelled with funds from Eastern Europe, the World Council of Churches and any organisation that wants to support them. That is why I find it somewhat sad that my hon. Friends almost seem to have seen fit to support their line.
The other people who are affected by this are our friends in the Commonwealth, especially in relation to the Commonwealth games. That was one reason why I found the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East so interesting, representing as he does a Scottish constituency. Many people are beginning to say, so be it if—just because British sportsmen and sportswomen choose to exercise what I repeat is their fundamental right of choice to participate in South Africa


in sports which, in many cases, are not represented in other countries—decide that because of that participation they do not wish to take part in the games themselves.
It was a tragedy that at Edinburgh last year, for all sorts of reasons, including the treatment received by Miss Zola Budd, who is a British citizen and who was accepted legitimately into this country—[Laughter.] Opposition Member laugh, but I wonder whether they would have laughed if Miss Zola Budd had been black rather than white—[Hors. MEMBERS: She would never have got into the country."]—and I wonder what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) would have said. Be that as it may, the Commonwealth games went ahead and the losers were not those who took part in the wonderful competition and who achieved so much; the losers were the black African countries. Their support comes from the Commonwealth and from the Commonwealth Secretariat, an office in London run by Sir Sonny Ramphal, who is, of course, a man of certain doubtful parentage from Guyana, on the basis of his attitudes towards the well-being of the Commonwealth and towards South Africa.
If the Commonwealth games can be played only on the basis of looking over one's shoulder the whole time to see whether someone is offending in relation to South Africa, which is a country without any connection with those games, something must be wrong somewhere.

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I may give way a little later, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
Added to all that, there is the machinery of protest from the United Nations. Only recently the United Nations appointed yet another Sports Commission against Apartheid. Of course, it had certain difficulties in finding members. On 3 October 1988, the first meeting ended in failure because only eight nominations were received from various countries and the commission should have comprised 15 members. Later, however, it was decided to appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman. The representatives came from Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines and the Ukraine. They were noble gentleman in their own way but one begins to question their attitude to and interest in South Africa.
Time and time again, reference is made in this House and elsewhere to the United Nations blacklist, which must have been thought out in the middle of the night by certain people who have what I believe to be an evil intent towards the people of South Africa, whatever the colour of their skin, and especially to those who are sportsmen and women. However, the blacklist was passed by the United Nations and those sportsmen and sportswomen are then vilified wherever they go just because they have exercised their freedom of choice and their right to go to an area or a country where, as I shall explain, they believe that great progress has been made in sport in breaking down the constitution of apartheid.
For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to only two examples. The first refers to rugby which, as many hon. Members know, is almost a religion in South Africa. The South African Rugby Board has made tremendous progress in raising funds, especially in the rural areas, to make absolutely certain that those who play that sport in that country do so on the basis of being free from discrimination on the grounds of "race, colour and ethnic origin" as stated in the Gleneagles agreement. At no club

in South Africa that is affiliated to the South African Rugby Board could any hon. Member find any discrimination in selection, the way in which the club is run or the spectators who go to the grounds, unlike the position with those that are affiliated to the South African Council on Sport.
Such enormous strides have been made that Dr. Danie Craven visited Lusaka to meet members of the African National Congress to discuss a basis for the fulfilment of South Africa's desire to return to international sport. The silence from the Opposition was deafening; they said not a word against that initiative. Indeed, words were said by Conservative Members because of the apparent naivety of Dr. Craven. However, that meeting established that even the ANC is prepared to consider whether there should be a place within the international fold for people of whatever sport, and of all colours, who are prepared to promote their sport, despite Government laws of the day, on the basis of no discrimination.
The other major sport where enormous progress has been made is cricket. The South African Cricket Union enjoyed its centenary only a few weeks ago and many notable British cricketers visited South Africa, including myself. No doubt that will prompt the hon. Member for Walsall, North to recite his usual catalogue from the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr. Winnick: How many trips has the hon. Gentleman made to South Africa? Were they paid for by the South African authorities? If, as the hon. Gentleman has previously admitted, that is the case, would it not be better for his reputation if he prefaced his remarks with a declaration to the House?

Mr. Carlisle: If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had felt such a declaration to be necessary, I am sure that you would have asked me to make one. The hon. Member for Walsall, North has made similar interventions so many times—in fact, almost every time that I speak—that he is probably more up to date with the register than I am. He knows full well that the majority, although not all, of my visits to South Africa have been financed by various authorities within that country, be they sporting bodies, Government, Round Table or Rotary. I have been to that country many times, and always travelled first class and stayed in first-class hotels—information that I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to have.
I can claim, which the hon. Gentleman cannot, to have some personal knowledge of events in South Africa. His criticism, both inside and outside the House, is always made from afar, as is that of Sam Ramsamy and Sonny Rampha. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not suggesting that we cannot criticise a country—we have done so in respect of Romania and other countries—without some sense of authority. However, as I and some of my hon. Friends have been to South Africa in various guises, we have a knowledge that the hon. Gentleman, who sits there in his white coat, does not have. I suggest that he accepts the various offers to travel to that side of the free world in the way that his hon. Friends accept offers to travel to the other side.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does not the Register of Members' Interests state:


The registering of interests is additional to, and in no way a replacement of, the requirement on Members to declare their interests when they speak in debate"?
That requirement is not a convention, but a rule of the House. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) should have declared his free visits to South Africa at the commencement of his speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I confirm that the words quoted by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are correct. If hon. Members have interests to declare, it is the custom that they do so at the outset of their speeches.

Mr. Carlisle: I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will take my original words on the basis that, had I declared an interest that is well known to the House—and I apologise for not doing so—the number of interventions from the hon. Member for Walsall, North would have been pre-empted because he would have had to think of something else to say—which, in his case, is somewhat difficult.
The progress made in cricket is, perhaps, the crux of what is happening in South Africa. Within the past two years, 60,000 black children, who have never even held a cricket bat because they thought cricket a white man's sport, have been coached by players from Britain and South Africa and have enjoyed a game that many hon. Members enjoy. That initiative has, on the whole, been financed by South African companies. The crucial part of that programme has been the arrival of British coaches who often spend the majority of their time in the black townships. Despite that, in January the International Cricket Conference passed regulations that will discourage and possibly even prevent many English coaches who have aspirations to represent their country from going to those black townships to help those children.
The House—like, indeed, the International Cricket Conference—should ask itself whether it is fair or moral for those children to be denied coaching by players from this country and elsewhere simply because the ICC thinks that that will preserve international cricket. If the only way to preserve an international sport is through blackmail and hypocrisy, there is something wrong with sport. Children in, for example, Alexandria will not now receive coaching from some of the lesser players on the English cricket circuit. Do hon. Members really believe that that helps those children? I believe it to be a barrier to one of the greatest sporting challenges of the past few years.
We shall no doubt return to this subject, which has bedevilled the sporting world for some years and will continue to do so until, perhaps, just men and women of true call, "Foul; enough is enough." It is time that we were fair to those whom we are trying to benefit. It is extraordinary to say that, because we do not like the colour of a Government or the way in which they run their country, we should deny their sportsmen and women the opportunity to improve their status and their standard of life. That is why I regret certain moves made by Ministers. I hope that the Government will be sensible and remember that freedom of choice should be not only at the heart of Conservative policy but a basic right of mankind.

Mr. Ian McCartney: It is unfortunate that I find myself following the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), whose speech has shown the degree to which he has been bought and sold by the South African Government.
I intend to raise a matter that has ramifications for the Lord Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House from time to time find themselves involved in cases where children have been abducted following matrimonial proceedings. The particular case that I wish to raise relates to my constituent, a Mr. Winstanley. Following a long and fraught divorce battle in the courts and court reporting on the after care and custody of his two children, the High Court in Greater Manchester decided that he should have custody and that they should remain in the United Kingdom until the age of 18. Mr. Winstanley's former wife is a Bulgarian national. In February, without the consent of the court or reference to the family, the children were abducted and taken to Bulgaria. It took from February until 8 May, with the full assistance of the Foreign Office, to establish first, where the children were; secondly, whether they were with their mother; and thirdly, whether they were being properly cared for.
Current law does not provide sufficient protection in abduction cases, irrespective of the decision about whether the children should remain with their father or their mother. It is usual for the courts to take the children's views into account before making a decision.
We require a change in the law to ensure that a child is protected from the activities of a parent or people acting on his or her behalf. For example, at this moment it is quite possible for a child to be removed from the United Kingdom without immigration authorities knowing that the child is a ward of a county court or the High Court. It is possible also for a child to be removed when he or she is still under the care of a social services department. When the High Court determines that a child should remain in the custody of the mother or the father, the parents' passports should be clearly marked to show that the child is in the custody of a parent. That would ensure that immigration officers would be alerted to the fact that a child may be in the process of being abducted by a parent or his or her paid representative. Unless the law is changed, such tugs-of-love will continue.
There are emotional difficulties on both sides. My constituent went through the due processes of the law, and the court determined that it was in the best interests of the children that they remain with the father. Those children, who expressed that wish to the court, were abducted and taken to a country far away from their father, with no opportunity to say that was not what they desired. With the assistance of the Foreign Office, we have been able to ascertain that the children are living with their mother in Bulgaria. However, the Foreign Office is unable to act. Its activities are limited to stating that the children are in good health and that there are opportunities for the father to visit them if the Bulgarian authorities will allow him to do so. It is important for the Home Office to consider reciprocal arrangements with other countries.
Unfortunately, my constituent is one of hundreds of people who will find themselves in a similar position this year, either because of one parent removing children or


people being paid to act as agents to abduct children from the United Kingdom. When a custody decision is handed down by a United Kingdom court, it is important to protect not the parents but the children. However, a court order was blatantly broken by a parent disregarding the order or an agent being paid to remove the child. When a child is removed, it is not the British court's responsibility to seek redress in the court of the country in which a child winds up. The parent is responsible for trying to make his or her way through the legal proceedings of a foreign country and to find the financial resources to do so. That is unacceptable. Many parents are unable to pay for legal proceedings in another country.
I appeal to the Bulgarian Government to take urgent steps to ensure that my constituent is allowed to go to Bulgaria and that all facilities will be available to him in term of access to the children and to legal proceedings so that he can determine whether the children wish to remain with their mother or make the journey back to the United Kingdom and present themselves to the court of confirm or vary the custody order that was made earlier this year.
It is important also to amend the Child Abduction Act 1984. It is virtually ineffective. It is effective only if parents or children have prior knowledge of a possible abduction. They can seek a High Court restraining order. It is a major flaw in the law that, unless there is prior knowledge of an abduction, one cannot use the Act to prevent a criminal offence or try to put pressure on the Foreign Office to ensure that children are brought back to the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts. It is part and parcel of reciprocal arrangements that there should be legal aid in the country in which further court proceedings will be held. When a child is abducted from the United Kingdom and court proceedings must take place in the country in which they are residing, it is important that the parents are given full rights within the law, limited as they may be in some countries, and the financial resources to ensure that their rights and those of their children are exercised.
In many cases we are concerned about parents' anxieties, but young children who were born and bred in the United Kingdom and are abducted to a foreign country cannot speak the foreign language, are completely disorientated and are unable to see the other parent or air their views on whether they wish to remain in that country or return to the United Kingdom. It must be a traumatic experience for them. From my interviews with him I understand that it is traumatic for my constituent and his family. Far too often, such trauma cannot be eased. Because of the lack of reciprocal arrangements the Government are unable to take international action. Unless they are given notice, immigration officers, police and social services departments are unable to know whether a child is being illegally removed. There are many measures to ensure that people enter this country legally, so surely we can take some steps to ensure that children are not illegally removed.
This is the second such case that has been brought to my attention. About 18 months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I were involved in a case in which, against their express wishes and those of the social services department, two young girls were removed to Iran. The mother was also removed. Because the authorities had no jurisdiction or prior knowledge of the abduction, the father went to the port of Hull, got on to a ferry to Holland, went across Europe, and then got on a plane to Iran. To this day, the mother does not know

whether her children are alive or are being cared for. The British courts and the Government are unable to assist parents in such cases.
Mr. Winstanley's case shows the need for the Government to examine possible reciprocal arrangements and ensure that, whenever a custody order is made, both parents' passports are marked accordingly so that authorities at ports of embarkation can be aware of possible abductions. As I said, there should be reciprocal agreements so that parents have full legal rights and financial resources to take their cases to the court of a foreign country.
I hope that the Leader of the House will respond positively. If he cannot respond specifically, will he at least give a commitment that the three Departments involved will follow up discussions with myself and other hon. Members who regularly face these cases? The lives of many of our constituents are shattered because of the inability to protect children who are abducted by a parent or his or her paid agent.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I give my full support to the passionate plea that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has made, through my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to the Foreign Office and to the Government of Bulgaria. I believe that it is well established in British law that the welfare of the child is paramount. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described, legal aid or financial assistance should he provided so that the wronged parent can pursue the children in the country to which the mother had taken them.
I wish to refer to two matters in this short debate. First, I want to make a vehement protest about the way in which British Airways treated its passengers at London airport while waiting for the 6.30 pm flight to Belfast on Friday. Those passengers were eventually told that they had to wait for the back-up flight to be made available. I had gone from Westminster to London airport to catch that flight and I know what the other passengers had to endure.
More than 100 passengers were made to stand for an intolerable time—between 40 and 45 minutes—on the ramp leading down to the departure lounge for the Belfast flight. One side of that ramp is glass and through it the full afternoon and evening sun shines. On Friday, the heat was intense and the temperature hovered at about 100 deg F. One can imagine the debilitating effect that that would have on the fittest and youngest, but among the weary passengers standing on that ramp—many of whom had travelled from abroad or within the United Kingdom—were elderly people, children and at least one pregnant woman. It is scandalous that no attempt was made by British Airways staff to find out whether the passengers were in a condition to stand in that heat for so long. No one offered chairs, no one offered any advice and no one said when the back-up plane might be made available. No one seemed to care about the passengers.
The well-advertised back-up aircraft was not available and no one was able to say when it would be. I trust that British Airways will abandon its advertising of such back-up services. I remember one advertisement showing a British Airways aircraft carrying a solitary passenger immediately after the regular flight, which was full, had taken off. That advertisement belongs to the realms of


fantasy as I have never seen that happen in reality. The 6.30 regular flight was an hour late leaving for Belfast because, according to British Airways staff, the airline had run out of kerosene. It is incomprehensible that no fuel was available for that flight.
It is possible that there are an insufficient number of staff available and British British Airways must ensure that such staff are available in the future, but that does not stop me condemning the way in which British Airways staff treat passengers for Northern Ireland. The incident on Friday was not unique. I have always thought that the way in which passengers are treated is similar to the way in which cattle are treated. The excuse that is always given is that the staff cannot cope with so many passengers and that the numbers take them by surprise. British Airways seems to be taken by surprise regularly every summer and every winter due to holidays or whatever. It never seems to learn or to care. It is high time that the chairman of British Airways, Lord King, resigned, because, if the buck stops anywhere, it must stop with him. I give notice that in the future the people of Northern Ireland will not accept such intolerable treatment from the staff of British Airways at London airport.
The second matter that I wish to raise concerns elderly people. In the previous general election, my principal opponent —whose campaign was largely run by those now regarded as the organisers of the North Down Conservative group—stated that I was elected, no doubt for the last time, on a dying vote. That is an insulting way to refer to the retired people who voted for me because of my concern for their well-being. Such arrogance and indifference towards pensioners ignores the fact that everyone who lives long enough will become old, and many of those who become old do not have enough money to take care of themselves.
The House should not rise until it is made aware of the plight of many elderly people. I refer particularly to those living in my constituency, but my remarks apply right across the country.
A percentage of pensioners in my constituency were in receipt of what used to be known as supplementary benefit but is now called income support. Recently, when the old-age pension was increased by a relatively small amount, those pensioners were no longer eligible for income support and the slight increase in pension was thus cancelled out by the loss of the supplementary sum. They have also lost other benefits because their incomes are no longer regarded as being below a particular financial limit. In other words, those pensioners are worse off, although the cost of living has increased with inflation at more than 8 per cent. and continuing to rise.
I have visited the homes of many pensioners in my constituency and I have seen how they have to think carefully about how they spend their pittance, budgeting carefully to decide what they can afford and what they must do without. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this grievous situation. There is an undeniable case for doing justice to our senior citizens who have worked hard throughout their long years. In my view, what is required is an immediate and substantial increase in the old age pension.

Mr. David Winnick: I fully support what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said about pensioners. Pensioners are being treated with contempt by the Government. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is to support the Labour party in every way he can, although I appreciate that he cannot actually do so in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) again sought to defend the indefensible. As I understand it, part of his argument is that he has the advantage of going on trips to South Africa. He was forced to declare his interest as a result of an intervention from the Opposition.

Mr. John Carlisle: indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he did not declare his interest and that he was forced to do so by the Chair. He should at least agree with me on this, as the events took place just half an hour ago.
Although the hon. Member for Luton, North has the advantage, if it may be so described, of visiting South Africa, he has always done so at the expense of the South African authorities or South African organisations. I believe that he once claimed in the Chamber never to have paid for such a trip. I have never been to South Africa, but I do not have to prove my point, which has been proved on so many occasions—that South Africa is isolated and will remain so until the apartheid regime is ended. I do not believe that there can be the slightest doubt about that.
I had the honour of being a Member of this place in the mid-1960s, and during that period I protested with other Labour Members constantly about the tortures taking place in Greece. Some hon. Members went on trips to Greece—we know all about those trips—and when they returned they painted a rather different picture of what I knew was taking place in Greece. In 1974, when the colonels' regime came to an end, all that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I had been saying about the torture and other terrible happenings was proved right. We knew that we were right when the colonels were in power. We do not have to go on sponsored trips to find out what is happening, any more than our predecessors needed to go to Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mussolini's Italy to find out what was going on in those countries.

Mr. John Carlisle: If hon. Members go on trips, sponsored or otherwise, it does not mean that they return with the opinions of the bodies that organise them. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who is not in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), the Minister of State, Home Office, and others have been to South Africa, but have returned with views entirely different from my own. Individuals can travel to other countries and return with different opinions, and sometimes their opinions are at odds with the organisations that sponsor their trips.

Mr. Winnick: In the main, those hon. Members who go on sponsored trips tend to return with the views of the organisations or countries which invited them to make the trips. The hon. Gentleman's illustrations are very much the exception. He demonstrates all too well the point that I am making. When he speaks in the House, he says that he speaks on behalf of South Africa. I would claim that he does not even speak on behalf of all the whites of South


Africa, but on behalf of a regime and its supporters which have been ostracised and are isolated from the rest of the world. The view that I have expressed is echoed by the Government. Ministers tend to say what I say and not what the hon. Gentleman says. He is an isolated figure in the House.
Before taking up a domestic issue, I wish to say a few words about the happenings in China. It would be unfortunate if the House ignored what is going on in that country. The students in China are to be congratulated on the way in which they have organised and sustained such a massive demonstration under a dictatorship. Ironically, those who follow events in China are aware that limited reforms have undoubtedly taken place in that country, especially since the death of Mao Tse-tung in 1976. Had the reforms of the past 13 years not taken place, it would have been virtually impossible for the current demonstrations to occur. Demonstrations cannot take place very well in conditions of terror. I accept, therefore, that there have been changes—the changes have been welcome and they have been recognised by the House in debates and at Question Time—but the fact remains that they have not been anywhere near sufficient to satisfy those who have been protesting.
I have been taken by surprise, however, although I have followed the demonstrations that have taken place in China in the past and I know what usually happens to demonstrators in that country. I know of those who have been imprisoned. For example, a dissident who is well known in international circles is currently in prison, having been sentenced to 15 years.
We do not know what will happen this week, let alone in the weeks and months to come. I only hope that the basic demand of the students will be met. Hundreds of thousands of students have been demonstrating day and night, and I salute their tremendous courage. It is not so easy sometimes to demonstrate in a democracy, and it is that much more difficult to do so in the conditions that prevail in countries such as China. The students have been joined by workers and many others and I believe that their demands should be met. They are saying that there should be a dialogue between the leadership of China and the representatives of those who have been demonstrating.
We are aware, of course, of the changes and reforms that have occurred in the Soviet Union, especially in the past three or four years, and it is understandable that many people in China want to see the same sort of progress. They do not argue necessarily for parliamentary democracy on the western model—perhaps it is not possible to have that form of democracy at this stage in China, or for some time to come—but many Chinese people want further and substantial changes. They see a neighbouring Communist party ruling the Soviet Union which has brought about many significant changes, including in some instances genuine contests at election time. Many Chinese demonstrating now are also concerned about corruption and favouritism in very high places.
Perhaps the position of Hong Kong has a more direct bearing on the United Kingdom than the events taking place in China. I was not opposed to the agreement made by the British Government with China for the future of Hong Kong. I believe that it was the right agreement in all the circumstances, and I am sure that it would have been made by a Labour Government. The best guarantee for stability in Hong Kong, however, is for the people there to

see substantial steps being taken towards democratic change in China, and it is understandable that there were demonstrations in Hong Kong in support of the students. Whatever may be written on paper, and whatever agreement may have been reached with China, the fact is that China remains very much an authoritarian type of dictatorship, if not now a totalitarian state.
If changes can occur in China on the same lines as those taking place in the Soviet Union, I believe that there will be some confidence among the people of Hong Kong, which will perhaps make them more willing to accept that there is a future there for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.
The domestic matter to which I wish to refer is causing a great deal of concern in the borough within my constituency. The Walsall health authority has submitted an expression of interest—that is the phrase used in the White Paper—in two hospitals opting out of the existing National Health Service management structure. One of the hospitals designated for opting-out is the main hospital in the borough. Only two weeks ago I attended the official opening of a large extension to it. I refer to the Manor hospital. There is no support for opting out within the borough, and certainly none within my constituency, and I have received many letters from constituents expressing their disquiet. They have asked me to do what I can to support the efforts being made to ensure that the two hospitals remain in the existing NHS management structure, and I have responded in a way that would be expected of a Labour Member.
Opting out, as many of my constituents who have written to me have rightly observed, is a half-way house privatisation. It is all part of the Government's attempt to erode and destabilise the NHS. That is not the view of the Labour party alone. The Joint Consultants Committee has stated:
These proposals inevitably change the prime aim of the management of these hospitals, from the provision of adequate care to the community as a whole to the financial success of the hospital. The considerable experience of such hospitals in the USA shows clearly that there will be pressure to encourage admission of patients with conditions that can be treated with financial benefit to the hospital rather than to admit those patients—often the chronic sick—whose treatment is likely to lead to little or no such financial benefit.
I imagine that most of the members of the Joint Consultants Committee do not vote for the Labour party, but I accept entirely what they have said. I have said repeatedly in my constituency, and I have written to this effect to the Secretary of State, that the Government talk constantly about participation and insist that voting is essential.
Before any decision is made for the two hospitals in my constituency to become what is described as NHS hospital trusts—that is, before any decision is made by the Secretary of State—there should be a ballot. Surely that is not asking too much. Is not that part and parcel of democracy? I have argued that in every ward and polling district within the borough the residents should have an opportunity to decide whether they want those hospitals to opt out. I am quite willing to abide by the decision reached. If it goes against my views, so be it, although I do not think that that is likely. There should be a ballot for the people to decide.
The Secretary of State for Health is not in the Chamber, but I should like to know whether he would be willing to abide by such a decision. If he says that no ballot is needed,


the inevitable response from Labour Members will be, "Why not?" Is he afraid of the outcome? Does he accept my view that the overwhelming majority of people in my borough, which covers three parliamentary constituencies, are completely opposed to the hospitals opting out of the existing National Health Service management structure? Many of the people who express that view were not Labour voters, or at least not at the last general election. When the Leader of the House responds, I hope that he will pass on what I have said in the usual way to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
There will be a meeting in the borough on Friday at which those who oppose the decision to opt out will make their views clear. I am certain that there will be many more meetings. The point that I shall make at the meeting is that it would be undemocratic and incompatible with any concept of democracy for the hospitals concerned to be withdrawn from the existing NHS management structure without any ballot of the residents. Nor has there been any suggestion that the medical and non-medical staff at the hospitals should be balloted. They have not been asked for their views either. I therefore thought it only right and proper that that issue, which is of great concern in my borough, should be aired at the first opportunity on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the spring recess, which actually feels more like the summer recess, I want to raise three brief points.
My first point concerns Basildon district council, which has increased its rates this year by 57·9 per cent. I can understand my hon. Friends being aghast at that, because that is the largest rate increase in the country. That increase has nothing to do with the provision of essential services, but everything to do with the enhancement of leisure facilities.
During the past year in Basildon, we have experienced what could be described as a hung council. It was a hung council by virtue of a Liberal councillor who described himself as an independent——

Mr. Alistair Burt: Where are the Liberals?

Mr. Amess: As my hon. Friend asks, where are they now?
On every conceivable opportunity, that Liberal councillor voted with the Labour party and—surprise, surprise—after the county elections this year this so-called Liberal-cum-independent officially joined the Labour party.
One of the many aspects that we must consider in dealing with this very damaging rate increase in Basildon is that of the direct labour organisation report. I have a copy of a note from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment which states:
Basildon's DLO report for 1987–88, sent to the Department, does indeed confirm a current loss of £634,000 on building maintenance work. Since this represents 58 per cent. of the turnover in this category, it is a serious financial failure. The deficit was charged in the first instance to the DLO reserve fund with the balance charged to the general rate fund as required by the DLO legislation … The Secretary of State is empowered ultimately to order closure of a DLO if it

fails to achieve the financial target of a 5 per cent. rate of return on capital employed and the authority are unable to provide a statutory explanation.
My constituents will rightly ask how on earth we have managed to lose £634,000.
However, it gets worse. We built a theatre at a cost of £8·5 million. I applaud any local authority which wishes to build theatres for us all to enjoy. Unfortunately, in Basildon we did not have a penny to finance the theatre's costs. Through creative accountancy, a company was set up and the theatre has been so organised that if every seat was occupied 365 days of the year, it would still lose a considerable amount of money.
The people I represent in Basildon welcome the community charge. We believe that Socialists are afraid of the community charge because the ratepayers will see clearly the result of irresponsible financial expenditure like that which occured in Basildon.
My second point relates to the plight of travelling people, which is hardly a new subject for us to consider. I fully recognise the enormous difference between gipsies and travelling people. Recently I drove through Maldon, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I noted that a number of travelling people had arrived in his area.
We have an organised site in Basildon which travelling people are welcome to use. However, a ridiculous state of affairs arose two weeks ago, when travelling people arrived at a municipal car park next to a leisure area and set up home. That has caused serious disruption locally involving enormous financial consequences in the amount of money required to clear up their mess. Although I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware of this, I remind him that travelling people can cause disruption to local schools.

Mr. McCartney: I live next to a gipsy caravan site and had no objection to supporting the application for it to be built. One of the problems with the overspill of travelling people or gipsy families involves the irresponsibility of some Conservative-controlled local authorities which refuse to be designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and utilise resources which I congratulate the Department of the Environment on providing to local authorities. The Department sometimes provides grants of nearly 100 per cent. to provide facilities to prevent overspills. If the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is concerned about local government expenditure, he should have a go at Conservative-controlled authorities which turn a blind eye to those problems.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman will not satisfy my constituents. I know how closely he has been following my speech, during which I said that we have a Socialist council in Basildon—which I know he would applaud—and we have a site which the travelling people are not using. The irresponsible way in which Socialists, whether they be Members of Parliament or district councillors, can applaud those travelling people is very unfair.
My final point relates to abortion. I had understood that all Members of Parliament regarded life as the most precious gift of all. We all fight to get to the House because we want to participate in the legislative process, and I had understood that legislation was all about organising people's lives. The 649 other hon. Members in this place


must regard life as the most important thing for us all. Why then do we always fail to have a vote to determine the stage at which an abortion can he obtained?
It is extraordinary that hon. Members who all have hospitals in their constituencies are very concerned about what goes on in the special baby units where pre-term babies are being kept alive 24 hours a day after being born at 22, 23 and 24 weeks when in those same hospitals it is possible for someone to obtain an abortion at up to 28 weeks.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend find it strange that on many occasions we have found time to debate capital punishment but rarely have time to reach conclusions on this country's unsatisfactory abortion laws?

Mr. Amess: I certainly find it strange. My views on capital punishment do not contradict my views on abortion, but I shall not detain the House with further details.
There is great unrest throughout the country, with people failing to understand why it is that an abortion Bill could come before the House last year, but that for procedural reason we were unable to continue voting on it. What are right hon. and hon. Members frightened of?

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend speaks with passion of his concern about abortion law, but what is he doing to help the 5,600 disabled children who are in institutional care because their families cannot cope with them? What is he doing to help find families for those children? Does he not think that handicapped children are in even greater need of love and care than normal children? What is he doing to help them?

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that subject. If he will consult my constituents, they can give him chapter and verse on how I am involved in helping disabled people locally. However, that has nothing to do with the subject of my contribution. I refuse to compromise. As far as I am concerned, life begins at conception.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, every sperm is sacred.

Mr. Amess: However, I recognise that politics is the art of the possible. If 1 vote for termination at 18, 19 or 20 weeks, of course I am compromising myself—but I welcome any measure that will reduce the period of time during which an abortion can be obtained if that saves even one life.
I hope that before the next general election the House will be allowed to reach a conclusion on abortion reform. When that happens, I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member will deny to others that which they would not deny themselves, but will join me and other right hon. and hon. Members in protecting the unborn child.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to raise the subject of the need to tell the truth to the House of Commons. For 20 years, I believed more or less automatically anything said by Ministers of whatever party at the Dispatch Box. If I now seem unduly

suspicious, it is a matter of being once bitten, twice shy. I wish to raise one subject briefly, and one other at far greater length.
The first concerns this afternoon's statement about the expulsion of Russian diplomats. I have a question for the Lord President of the Council that he can send to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to answer. It is the same question that I put to the Foreign Secretary this afternoon which he did not answer. My question concerns the "incontrovertible evidence" that gave rise to the expulsions. Was it in any way raised with Lord Griffiths and his fellow members of the Security Commission? If not, what is the purpose of the Security Commission'? Some right hon. and hon. Members would like a second opinion of that "incontrovertible evidence". I am not asking to see that evidence myself. I am not even suggesting that those of my right hon. Friends who are Privy Councillors should see it. But after all that has happened, a judge of the Court of Appeal should have agreed that the evidence was incontrovertible.
We have been through Zircon, Westland and GCHQ. There has been a whole series of economies with the truth. It is in that context that I ask whether Lord Griffiths and his colleagues were consulted about that decision.
The second issue I want to raise relates to the unpopular subject of what happened in Gibraltar. Right hon. and hon. Members will see from a letter to me from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he has placed in the Library copies of a statement made by a Spanish police officer concerning the surveillance of three IRA personnel—Mairead Farrell, Daniel McCann and Sean Savage—in the period prior to their deaths at the hands of the SAS in Gibraltar on 6 March last year.
That statement, which maintains that the Spanish police "lost" the three IRA members on 4 March, two days before the shootings, was presented to the Gibraltar coroner during the inquest. The coroner refused to answer my letter to him. I do not complain, but I received a very courteous reply to my letter asking certain questions of the coroner, which he declined to answer. Nevertheless, following the Gibraltar coroner's rules, he declined to accept that statement as evidence because there was no witness to testify under oath.
The statement then surfaced in The Sunday Times and I understand that it was passed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Lord Windlesham during his inquiry into the Thames Television programme "Death on the Rock". I say in parenthesis that Lord Windlesham did an honest job and that the response to his inquiry by Lord Trefgarne in another place was among the most odious and unacceptable statements made from a Front Bench that there has ever been during my 27 years in the House.
The apparent purpose of disclosing that statement was to discredit the programme's claim that the IRA personnel had been under Spanish surveillance up to the time of their arrival in Gibraltar. I see from the Minister's letter that the Spanish police officer's statement was given at Malaga police station to the Gibraltar coroner's officer, Chief Inspector Correa. According both to the Minister's letter and to the chief inspector's sworn evidence to the inquest, no Spanish judge was present when the statement was given. In his evidence, Chief Inspector Correa said that no Spanish judge was available that day.
That assertion raises a central question in the Gibraltar controversy, for it is a matter of record that the Spanish Interior Minister, Mr. Jose Luis Corcuera, told his


country's senate on 11 April this year that the Spanish police officer concerned made his statement about surveillance before a judge in Malaga. Last week, I visited Spain officially as a member of an all-party group, and had informal conversations in the Cortes. Considerable concern was expressed about the matter, because at issue is the truthfulness or otherwise of a Spanish Minister in making a statement to the Spanish Parliament. "This," said Mr. Corcuera, "is the way in which it should always be done"—that is, the hearing before a judge.
Only last week, on 19 May, the spokesman for the Spanish police in Madrid, Mr. Manuel Jimenez Cuevas, announced publicly that the statement had been made on 8 August 1988, in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga. Thus a contradiction has arisen. If the statement placed in the Library of the House of Commons by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the genuine account of events by the Spanish police, the Interior Minister of Spain has misinformed his country's Senate about the circumstances in which the statement was taken, and the Spanish police themselves appear to be under a serious misapprehension.
If, on the other hand, the Spanish Interior Minister was telling the truth in his country's Senate, that raises a still more serious question: is the statement placed in the Library of the House by the Minister of State the only Spanish account of what took place between 4 and 6 March, or are there two separate statements—one taken in peculiar circumstances by the Gibraltar coroner's officer, Chief Inspector Correa, and the other made in accordance with normal Spanish practice in front of an examining magistrate?
May I ask the Lord President whether he can obtain clarification from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on whether it has in its possession a second Spanish statement on surveillance made on 8 August last year in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga? If it received such a statement, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office explain why it apparently made no attempt to introduce it at the coroner's inquest in Gibraltar last year, and will it now place a copy of that second statement—made in front of an examining magistrate in Malaga—in the Library of the House of Commons?
I have four questions. First, was the statement made by a Spanish police officer on 8 August 1988 in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga ever received by the British authorities? Secondly, on what date was the statement made by a Spanish police officer in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga received by the British authorities, and on what date was that same statement passed to the coroner in Gibraltar? Thirdly, where is the statement made by a Spanish police officer in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga now held? Fourthly, will the Government place the statement made by a Spanish police officer in front of the examining magistrate of court No. 6 in Malaga in the Library of the House of Commons? The two statements are in the Library's possession, and, indeed, in mine.
I believe that this is an important matter of truthfulness to the House of Commons or otherwise, which should be cleared up somehow before we go into recess.
Finally—I will be very brief—there is the now well-known statement by Sir Leon Brittan. The Lord President will be thankful that I do not propose to regurgitate the subjects that he and I have so often bandied across the Floor of the House. I think, however, that it would be healthy if the Prime Minister were now to come to the House and say, "Yes, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell did keep me fully informed about the progress of my quite improper idea to get the Solicitor-General to write a letter and then leak it. They kept me fully informed about the role of Sir Leon Brittan, and when I was under pressure I did tell a self-preserving fib to the House of Commons.'
Parliament really cannot operate properly if Ministers, however senior, get away with lying.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I wish to raise three issues, two briefly and one somewhat more thoroughly. The first, touched on briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), is the problem of itinerants and their proper control.
In my constituency, which has designated sites, we have had persistent trouble with itinerants for many years. We have had outbreaks of trouble in Headcorn, Staplehurst and Hunton, but now we are suffering a serious outbreak in Marden—and I mean trouble in the truest sense of the word. My constituents have been physically threatened, and in one case assaulted, by people who have encamped themselves illegally without permission, and who insist on staying.
It is not very surprising that they insist on staying when enforcement procedures are so inadequate for what is required, and when the workings of the law take so long that any itinerant can encamp himself illegally, get connected up to essential services and sit and laugh while the authorities try to remove him, no matter what trouble he may be causing. This is not a new problem; it is an extremely old one, and is certainly not peculiar to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. Yet there is a lack of will to tackle the problem, and I do not believe that we should adjourn until we have examined it in rather more detail.
It is not very difficult to make the law easier to enforce. If, in accordance with the recommendations of the Carnross report, we made stop notices applicable to caravans—as they are to other dwellings and constructions —it would be possible to bring about immediate enforcement of the law. If we made it impossible for people to obtain connection to services when illegally encamped, it would be much more uncomfortable for them to stay. Meanwhile, the nuisance continues and there is an absence of will. I find it difficult to face my constituents in Marden when I can deliver them no promise of firm action. The problem has been raised time and again, and I know from experience that action is unlikely to be forthcoming.
Secondly, I should like to raise two issues connected with the aerodrome at Headcorn in my constituency. The first is the nuisance of low-flying aerobatic planes, which have caused considerable problems to neighbours. They certainly appear to have flown lower than they are supposed to, and on one occasion one of them came out of the aerodrome on to a road. I have in my possession a petition signed by hundreds of Headcorn residents.
Almost more serious is the problem of parachuting at Headcorn. I am sure that the House will remember two


instances in the past two years of civilian parachutists being killed as a result of collision with aircraft. The first concerned one of my constituents, a young girl making a jump for charity, who fell on to the rotating blades of a helicopter that was on the landing ground. When I raised the issue and asked how landing parachutists and aircraft taking off could possibly have been allowed to mix, I was told, "It was her first jump: she was inexperienced. Had she known what to do, the tragedy might have been averted."
The second incident did not involve a constituent, but it happened at Headcorn. This was a very experienced civilian parachutist, again a young girl but in this case on her 35th jump. As she was landing, she fell on to the propellors of an aircraft. It would be very simple, and it would alleviate a great deal of distress both to relatives and to others, to separate completely, by law, the areas where parachutists land and those where aircraft land and take off. I have no idea why that suggestion is being so comprehensively ignored and why such a mountain is being made of what I believe would be a molehill of legislation that could save lives.
It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend if I make a plea to him that is in line with the third matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. At this moment, as we propose to adjourn for the spring recess, during which we shall not consider any legislation, there is a law that allows one child in an incubator to be loved and cherished and to have all the resources of medical science put at his or her disposal in an effort to save it while another child, of exactly the same age, at exactly the same level of development and with exactly the same level of sentience, can be dismembered alive in its mother's womb.
If hon. Members can adjourn for the spring recess leaving a law of that sort on the statute book, there is something seriously wrong. I urge my right hon. Friend at least to use the time offered by the spring recess to reflect seriously on the fact that we shall not let this issue rest, that it will not go away and that it is a thoroughly bad law that treats two identical children in such a completely different way.
Every time that an hon. Member raises the plight of the unborn, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) gets to his feet and demands to be told why we are not talking about those who have been born. My hon. Friend's interest in handicapped children and his own position with regard to a handicapped child are known and respected. However, when he talks about handicapped children, I do not intervene and demand to be told why he is not talking about old-age pensioners. When another hon. Member is talking about old-age pensioners, I do not ask why he or she is not talking about single parents. If another hon. Member refers to single parents, I do not demand to he told why he or she is not talking about the disabled in general. It is foolish to say that if one is raising the plight of the unborn one cannot therefore possibly care about those who have been born and that one is neglecting one's duty towards them. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East to reflect on that fact.
An anomaly of our crazy abortion laws is that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 provides that it is illegal to destroy a child who is capable of being born alive

but that it is perfectly legal to poison the foetus before abortion in order to ensure that it is not born alive. A horrific anomaly of that kind requires urgent attention.
Then there are the activities of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. That service seems to be limited entirely to terminations. We have had endless reports of unsympathetic treatment when those who turn to the service for help say that they do not want terminations. There is the case of the Carlisle baby who was born alive but who is still not registered. The request for an inquest was turned down, although an inquest would normally have been a formality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred to the fact that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members are in favour of some reform of the abortion law, although I recognise that there is division as to where exactly the line should be drawn. Despite that overwhelming majority, a small group of people, arrogant in their motives, wish to thwart the will of Parliament. Their methods and procedures are impudent and they have consistently frustrated the will of the House.
Why would it be such a major shift in their thinking if the Government decided to deal with this question? If embryology is a fit subject for the Government, if a small baby not yet 14 days old in the womb is a fit subject for the Government, how much more is it a fit subject for them when that baby is fully developed and sentient at 18 weeks? I have asked my right hon. Friend before, and I ask him again now, to say when this matter will receive the attention that Parliament wants it to receive and that the country wants it to receive but that a tiny group of people are determined that it should not have.

Mr. Tony Banks: My concern is the catastrophic decline in the population of the African elephant, due to illegal ivory poaching, which is becoming more desperate by the day. It has reached the point where I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the spring recess until we have had a full debate on the subject.
Recent reports from conservation groups have produced incontrovertible evidence to show that we are now at a critical point. Ivory poaching activity has increased dramatically over recent months and years. One of the problems is that a number of dirty wars are going on in Africa—civil wars and terrorist activities. Those wars are, in part, being financed by the illegal trade in endangered species—live animals and animal products, especially elephant ivory and black rhino horn. The tirade is abominable and immoral and a crime against the living world.
I know that there is considerable sympathy in the House for the plight of the African elephant and that the Leader of the House shares that concern. He answered a question to that effect last week. Words, however, are insufficient. We need political action, which must be immediate and dramatic. Time is not on the side of the African elephant.
The population of African elephants has fallen from 2·3 million in 1970 to around 700,000 today, and 80,000 African elephants a year are being slaughtered. It is believed that by the year 2000, if the current trend continues, the African elephant will be all but extinct. Although it is claimed that there is a 50:50 balance between legal and illegal ivory trading, I estimate that


perhaps 75 per cent. of all ivory trade is illegal at the outset. That is because certain corrupt African Governments and officials give export permits to illegal ivory.
The convention on international trade in endangered species—an organisation that is supposed to be regulating this trade—retrospectively legitimises what it knows to be illegal ivory. There have been a number of examples in this country. A recent example involved a shipment of illegal ivory that was landed at Gatwick airport—1,464 kilos from Zaire. After CITES allowed the tusks to be renumbered, the Department of the Environment granted a licence. It appears that that process is about to be repeated again, this time with a cargo of 1,025 kilos of illegal ivory, again from Zaire, which is now at Heathrow airport.
Why is that allowed to happen? Why does CITES accept money from ivory dealers, for example, which must put in question its impartiality? Why does the Department of the Environment retrospectively legalise cargoes of illegally imported ivory? Britain is clearly being used as one of the world's major staging posts for the passage of illegal ivory which then goes to Dubai, Hong Kong and Japan, often with false papers, where it is made into jewellery, billiard balls and snooker balls, carvings and piano keys for export back to Europe and North America.
I ask the Leader of the House to put it to his colleagues, because I know that he is on our side, first, that the British Government must impose an immediate ban on the import and export of raw and worked ivory as an example both to the world and, in particular, to the EEC. We must do that as a prelude to establishing a worldwide ban on the ivory trade.
Secondly, there must be a ministerial inquiry into the actions of the Department of the Environment in colluding with CITES in legalising retrospectively the illegal import of ivory. Ivory that is known to have been illegally imported and that is impounded at the port of entry should not be auctioned off or legalised. It should be seized and destroyed. That is the only way to try to stop the trade.
Thirdly, the Government should insist that CITES must no longer accept funding from ivory dealers. Fourthly, the Government should give immediate assistance by means of human and material resources to those African countries that are desperately trying to protect their remaining elephant herds from the activities of poachers. In certain cases, the British Government should give military assistance, if that is requested.
The African elephant is one of the largest, most gentle and most intelligent creatures on our planet. It would be a crime against the world if we allowed the African elephant to become extinct. This country, with all its special connections, cannot stand by waiting for someone else to take action. The screams of the slaughtered elephants of Africa should torment our consciences until firm, decisive and, above all, immediate action is taken. The elephants of Africa desperately need action to save them. The country demands action, and the Government should not hesitate to act.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I support the motion, because I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to study care in the community during the short break. We know that the Government are deliberating on their response to the Griffiths report. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has any part in those deliberations but I hope that, if he has, he will take the opportunity to study some of the reports being prepared in Bolton. Bolton has been described by the district audit committee, in a report produced in September last year, as
very much to the forefront of developments nationally.
Bolton has had a pilot scheme for care in the community since the concept was first heard of in Britain. The town was visited by the Select Committee on Social Services when it was preparing its report. The council has now produced a comprehensive report entitled "A Way to Go: Goal 2000". An active handicap action group has been set up, and it has campaigned and produced reports.
My concern was aroused strongly during the general election campaign when a number of parents came to me and said that they were unable to cope with their problems at home with grown-up children who, because of mental handicap, still had a young mental age. Because of plans to close hospitals, they were left in great doubt about the future for their children. They wanted to know what provision could be made to avoid the development of a two-tier service, in which people coming out of the closed-down hospitals would be provided with adequate dowries, whereas others would be left with a second-rate service, if anything. The tension between the voluntary carers who often have to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every week of the year, and people who are employed by the local authority on a nine-to-five day, five days a week with plenty of holidays, became clear.
One of the ladies to whom I spoke said that she could not accept the power that the local authority held over her life in determining what care services should be provided. The worst aspect of the care services is that those in need of care get the least. The report prepared by the council makes that only too clear. When it talks about people who have challenging behaviour—the most difficult to look after—it found that there was virtually no service provision specific to the needs of those people. In other words, the more help people need, the less they get. Is is unrealistic to regard local authorities as the salvation for these problems. I take some exception to the conclusions reached in the Griffiths report, paragraph 30 of which says:
if community care means anything, it is that responsibility is placed as near to the individual and his carers as possible.
Sir Roy Griffiths argues that the priorities should be determined
as local as possible and with the locally elected authority.
That does not necessarily follow. I do not see why we cannot set up locally based groups—they may be called neighbourhood care groups—and follow through the first part of Griffiths recommendation that
responsibility is placed as near to the individual and his carers as possible
We should give as much of the budget provision and responsibility as possible to those groups, and let them be run by voluntary carers. That is what people want. That is what the Bolton Handicap Action Group, which is chaired


by John Seddon, and which has achieved official recognition as the body which represents handicapped people in Bolton, told me. Leading people, who are known in the town for their concern for the handicapped have written to me. I have had a letter from Mary Kershaw and Barbara Ashman saying:
We feel that public sector funds could be better used in Bolton if directed by a volunteer care management group.
Could you ask the Government to set up a pilot scheme along these lines in Bolton?
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put that argument to his colleagues.
The council says:
We recommend increasing the involvement of other agencies, voluntary or private, with consideration being given to the development of joint projects between two or more agencies, or setting up consortia of several agencies … Parents can be equal members of any such body as long as they see their role as expressing parents' views, and, indirectly, the consumers' `voice'.
Mr. Oliver Holt, who is well known for his work with Mencap and others, says that many problems have arisen because
over those years the people with the power to make decisions were all `itinerant' professionals and politicians (local + national)) who did not have an absolute commitment to producing a solution. They made their decisions which affected our lives and then passed on to other challenges in other fields.
The parents have at last seen through this charade and must now insist on being genuinely involved in the planning and providing of these services, not just as consultants, but as real partners. I hope you can help to make this happen.
I ask my right hon. Friend to spend a little time during the break considering what can be done to provide more power to the elbow of those who are responsible for keeping the show on the road and providing everyday care.
The value of voluntary carers for the mentally handicapped could be worth nearly £1 billion, but it is not paid for. If anybody thinks that the solution involves paying for care, they should realise that it will cost a lot of money. At the moment, about £1 billion of public money is spent on the care of the mentally handicapped, but the vast majority of that goes on the 60,000 people in residential care. The 100,000 people in domestic care cost the taxpayer only £300 million a year. If they were charged at the same rate as the others, an extra £900 million would have to be provided each year.
If the Government want to harness the energies of the voluntary sector, they can use them in the management and direction of these services. It should not be left to local authorities to harness their energies. I am told that in one local authority area, if voluntary drivers brought disabled people to a day centre, they had to discharge them on the perimeter of the premises because only trade union drivers were allowed to come on to the premises, as that was their job. That shows how conflicts between trade union-dominated local authorities and the voluntary sector can lead to unsatisfactory results. I leave that thought with my right hon. Friend and hope that he can give some attention to it over the short break.

Mr. John Battle: Other hon. Members have mentioned the need to tell the truth. I have also heard the phrase, "the right to life". I shall refer to what might seem a small matter of definition but one which I believe

is vital to my constituents and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other people. I refer to the definition of poverty.
Recently, we have heard Ministers challenge the use of the word "poverty", perhaps with an idea that they can simply define poverty away. This morning, before I came down to the House, I met a young mother of a seven-week-old child. She brought me a letter from the Yorkshire water authority threatening to cut off her water supply. She came to see me because her private landlard had served her notice that he would evict her next month, and as an afterthought she told me about her problem with the water bill, as she could not see how on earth she could pay that bill from her income. I am more than likely to be spending the recess meeting my constituents, many of whom will be asking me how on earth can they cope with their water bills and electricity bills on their limited incomes and reduced housing benefits, which has been referred to earlier. Many people in my constituency are genuinely strugglingg to balance their weekly budgets.
I urge the Leader of the House to take up with his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Security a particular suggestion and invite him to move towards arbitration on the definition of poverty in Britain by re-establishing the Royal Commission on wealth and income distribution in Britain which his Government so readily abolished when they were elected in 1979.
In recent weeks the Secretary of State for Social Services has declared that he believes poverty to be redundant. The title of his recent lecture was, "The End of the Line for Poverty". It seemed to me that he was telling the poor to get off the economic vehicle as they had reached the terminus. One issue that has been and will continue to be highly contentious is the Government's claim that all are sharing in the benefits of booming Britain. That is not true. Every person in our society is not participating in that much-vaunted increase in wealth. Some are not participating, and some are falling into increasing poverty as a result of the Government's tax and social security policies.
The Secretary of State claimed that his Department has set up a comprehensive list of indicators of standards of living. Yet, in a parliamentary reply on 17 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security warned us against using the "Households Below Average Income" statistics. He said:
It should, however, be noted that the principal objective of the 'Households Below Average Income' statistics is to measure improvements in living standards in different parts of the income-distribution for the population as a whole. The tables are not designed to measure the living standards of individuals by economic status within each decile of the population.
He went on to suggest that the tables do not provide
a meaningful guide to improved living standards."— [Official Report, 17 March 1989; vol. 149 c. 390–1]
It appears that the Department of Social Security does not have an agreed means of determining the living standards of those on below average incomes.
Last July, the Select Committee on Social Services challenged the statistics on households below average income with the remark:
the new series does not give complete information about the numbers on low incomes.
Once again, the Secretary of State was determined to blame the victims for their plight, and suggested that it was nothing to do with the policies of the Government, but was the fault of the victim. He referred to


the margin for inefficiency of expenditure.
That was a remarkable phrase. He also referred to
an allowance for unskilled shoppers".
He seems to think that the problem is that people do not do their shopping properly. The problem is that, on £48·60 a week, with a reduction of £2·15 in help with their housing costs and then being short-changed by 2 per cent. on the allowance for inflation in a single pension, those single pensioners cannot buy the same goods in Morrison's supermarket in Bramley this month as they could in March. If that is not a decline in their standard of living, I do not know what is.
When the Secretary of State has the gall to refer to the skills with which families spend their money, he displays a remarkable lack of knowledge. In my experience, those who have to pay the price in society display remarkable arithmetical accuracy as they have to do their weekly shopping on low budgets. I am tempted to challenge the Secretary of State and ask him whether he can remember the price of the last meal that he ate out. I am sure that most of the people that I represent could say exactly how much they paid for the goods in their shopping trolleys.
In another parliamentary answer, the Under-Secretary of State warned us that
Any suggestion that 'poverty' can be measured by the distribution of the cake without regard for the changing size of that cake must be questioned."—[Official Report, 21 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 337.]
I entirely agree. We should take into account the distribution of wealth and income in society instead of focusing only on poverty. In that respect, the return of a royal commission that focused on wealth as well as on income would be welcome. Perhaps that royal commission could do worse than explore the concept of participating in the life of society as a source of the definition of what it means to be poor in modern Britain.
Poverty is not simply a lack of money or physical necessities. It excludes certain people in society from that in which the Prime Minister claims to believe in most of all —the freedom of choice. The freedom to eat as we wish, to go where and when we like is not open to everyone. I certainly do not believe that people choose to be poor when it could be suggested that there are other options. Poverty could best be understood comprehensively as a state of partial citizenship. In the context in which the Prime Minister believes that there is no society, it would be difficult to find a basis for common citizenship. The Government seem determined to wipe out any sense of one community of human beings who can only flourish together; and when that happens, the deprivation of the poor becomes invisible. They are marginalised and pushed out of the main economic text.
The Secretary of State said in his lecture:
Of course as a Government we must keep a careful eye on what is happening to the numbers and the characteristics of the lower-income households. Of course we will continue to give help to the individuals and families who need it.
I have only to reflect on the caseload in my constituency, which I am sure is repeated elsewhere. If that is the case, we are entitled to ask why all our constituency inquiries to DHSS offices receive replies containing the last sentence, "Sorry that we cannot help, even though we would like to in the circumstances".
The Secretary of State continued:

We cannot do this unless we can identify who they really are and identifying them is not helped by arbitrary and exaggerated estimates of the number of people said to be living in poverty.
I agree with that entirely; therefore, I invite the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to establish a royal commission to settle that definition and to bottom out public information. In every debate in the House on social security and in the economy there has been a deep and divisive dispute about the figures of who are in wealth and who are in poverty in Britain. We end up with discrepancies in statements to the House and in the facts and figures provided by the statistical services of the Library. Last July the "Households Below Average Income," statistics were challenged as not giving an adequate account of the position.
I refuse to accept that, as one newspaper put it,
some are poor because nature has not given them the gift of earning much. Some are poor by ill luck.
Poverty is not misfortune, bad luck or inevitable, or due to laziness, ignorance or lack of development. It is the direct result of political and economic decisions, not least in this House. It is manufactured by particular policies and systems. It is a political problem that needs a political answer, and one way in which we could tackle it is not by targeting the poorest, in the Government's terms, nor by the trickle-down theory of wealth, which certainly seems to dry up before it reaches those who deserve it most. The Government's policies are not delivering economic justice to all in our society. Instead of eulogies on what the Secretary of State called "western material capitalism", the House should strive to deliver public justice. Establishing the royal commission could be an appropriate way of setting the basis for that action.

Mr. Frank Dobson: My hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised some important issues which the House should address before the spring Adjournment. I shall confine my remarks to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—the extraordinary speech made by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 11 May. I have been asked by some of my colleagues to press the Leader of the House to say whether the Secretary of State's view that poverty in Britain has reached the end of the line is official Government policy.
In his speech, the Secretary of State said that what he described as the stark Dickensian poverty of 100 years ago was no longer widespread. He said that no one could properly be described as poor and that, compared with the standard of poverty set by Booth and Rowntree at the end of the century, people were now living in affluence beyond their wildest dreams. That tells us more about the poverty of the Secretary of State's imagination than about the condition of many poor people. It also tells us about his poverty of knowledge of the subject.
The modern Tory party claims to be the intellectual offspring of Adam Smith. The trouble is that it either does not know or conveniently forgets a great deal of what its father figure said. The Secretary of State's narrow definition of poverty was explicitly rejected by Adam Smith who, referring to what he called the "necessities of life", included


not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but also whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.
In those circumstances, it is clear that Adam Smith would have disowned the Secretary of State's ludicrous speech of 11 May. All matters to do with poverty are clearly relative to time and place.
I would go further and say that the Secretary of State was wrong and that there are indeed people living in conditions of abject poverty to which Booth and Rowntree would have objected. In his speech, the Secretary of State quoted from Booth's description of Shelton street, which is on the edge of my constituency in Covent Garden. He accepts as "poverty" Booth's description of the conditions prevailing in Shelton street where, as Booth said, whole families occupied one room and in such rooms life at night was unbearable.
The Secretary of State did not need to go back to the 1890s to find families living in one room or whose lives were unbearable during the night. His Department must have copies of the reports on the housing conditions of homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation within a mile or a mile and a half of this Chamber. I will quote from a report about the circumstances—in 1987, not 1887—in which some of our fellow citizens are required to live. It says:
Even if hotel accommodation is in good order it is rarely appropriate to the needs of young children. It is difficult to maintain hygiene while washing, eating and sleeping in one overcrowded room. High levels of gastro-enteritis, skin disorders and chest infections have been reported. Kitchen facilities are often absent or inadequate, so people are forced to rely on food from cafes and take-aways, which is expensive and may be nutritionally unsatisfactory. The stress of hotel life undermines parents' relationships with each other and their children. Normal child development is impaired through lack of space for safe play and exploration. High rates of accidents to children have been reported, probably due to a combination of lack of space and hazards such as kettles at floor level. There have been difficulties in providing primary health care services to homeless families, including problems in registering with general practitioners leading to lack of continuity of care.
That is not Shelton street in the 1890s, but my constituency and many other parts of central London in the 1980s. It is not Calcutta, but our own capital city.
I will quote from a further report on the conditions in which some people are asked to live. If this is not poverty, I do not know what is. Bloomsbury district health authority's report states:
In October 1988 in just the Camden part of Bloomsbury there were over 500 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. The Health Visiting Service knew of approximately 200 … Risk to health in bed and breakfast … is well above that of the domiciled population. These risks stem from shared, or lack of amenities, overcrowding and unsafe properties. Infection, accidents, malnutrition, sleep disturbances, low birth weight babies, eating problems, behavioural problems and depression and even death can result.
Those are just some examples of the circumstances in which our fellow citizens are expected to live.
The report goes on to say:
A woman was found seven days after a caesarian section with no follow-up care, no cot in the room, a seven inch scar, no pain relief. The toilet was two floors down that there was a shared bathroom. The woman's breasts were blistered and she had no idea how to make up bottle feeds or sterilise equipment. This woman was found whilst the Health Visitor was looking for another baby.
In another case the report says:

Two year old twins were found by chance in a hotel room. They had recently been diagnosed as diabetic.
There were three children in one room with the mother. There was nowhere to store insulin, which needs a refrigerator, and there was nowhere safe to keep syringes or needles because there were drug abusers in the hotel. Cooking facilities were limited, although a controlled diet is essential for diabetics. There was a
High risk of accident and infection, all of which are particularly hard to resolve in diabetics".
There was also stress. All those things make diabetes harder to control.
There were other cases that health visitors had "stumbled across" while visiting bed-and-breakfast families. One included
a baby three weeks old, who was failing to thrive, and needed three weeks in hospital. Soon after discharge the family moved on and could not be followed up.
Another case involved the mother of a 15-month-old baby. She was illiterate and educationally subnormal but cared for her child very well. Because she had come from another borough, the back-up services had not been able to follow her.
I do not want to get into a dispute about relativities of poverty. The people whom I have just described live in circumstances which Charles Booth, on visiting Shelton street in 1891, would have recognised and described as "poverty stricken". By his Victorian values, thousands of families are living in abject poverty in bed and breakfast accommodation. However, there is a difference between Charles Booth and the Secretary of State; Charles Booth did not travel from a house with a swimming pool in a chauffeur-driven car to a luxury office in Whitehall. He went out and looked at where the poor lived. He checked and logged their circumstances and began to do something about them. He thought that it was wrong for a family to live in one room, and by God he was right.
In contrast, the Secretary of State pretends that such conditions do not exist. He says that poverty is at an end, but it is not. As an elected Member of Parliament, representing hundreds of such families, I find it humiliating that they have to live in such circumstances and that I can do nothing about it. It should also be humiliating for Ministers. The Secretary of State for Health would spend his time better looking after such people than in harassing doctors. It would be better if the Secretary of State for Social Security helped such people. It would be better if the Secretary of State for the Environment built them some houses. It would cost only half as much for them to have a decent house as it costs to keep them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Those are the circumstances that prevail at the end of the Thatcher economic miracle. They are a disgrace, and we shall debate them tomorrow in the debate on inner cities. Conservative Members who spend their time opting out and enjoying themselves in South Africa should not laugh at the circumstances in which some people live. We need a Government who are concerned and committed to doing something. We do not have one, but we shall continue to press until we have.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Although right hon. and hon. Members have raised many matters that concern them, to which I shall reply in a moment, it appears that the general wish of the House is to adjourn


for the proposed dates of the spring recess. In the seven weeks since the House returned from the Easter recess, eight Bills have been given a Second Reading and further progress has been made on a wide range of others. We can safely adjourn for about 10 days before returning with renewed vigour to tackle more of the Government's far-reaching legislative programme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke of his concern, and that of his constituents, about the closure of two cottage hospitals in Oswestry and Newport. I listened to a radio programme the other day when the BBC was on strike—some of the programmes are much better when it is on strike—about cottage hospitals in Shropshire. Anyone who listened to that programme would have been impressed by the voluntary effort that is made in those hospitals, which I hope will be channelled into new sectors. My right hon. Friend is aware of the proposals to rationalise the hospitals as a consequence of the new district hospital at Telford.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who told me that, unfortunately, he would have to leave the Chamber, raised the case of nuclear test veterans. The Government's policy is based on the report published in January 1988 by the independent expert advisers on radiological matters of the National Radiological Protection Board. The board's report did not establish any causal relation between increased incidence of any cancer and participation in the United Kingdom's nuclear test programmes of the 1950s and 1960s. The policy of the Ministry of Defence is to pay appropriate compensation wherever Crown liability is established. As there is no firm evidence to show that the health of British test veterans was affected by exposure to radiation during the United Kingdom's test programmes—a view supported by the board's findings—the Government have taken the view, following legal advice, that the Crown cannot be held liable for any ill health suffered by those who participated and that it would not, therefore, be appropriate to pay compensation. I know that that will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, who campaigns hard for the causes about which he is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir. F. Montgomery) made, as he sometimes does on these occasions, a number of interesting points. He mentioned confiscated drug money being used to fight drugs. The Government are well aware that the vital work of combating all types of serious crime makes heavy demands on the police. However, difficulties of principle and practice weigh against passing confiscated funds directly to law enforcement work. Resources must be allocated according to an assessment of overall priorities and needs, to which all public services must be subject. Such income would vary and would be unreliable, and no well-planned initiative could afford to depend on it. Nevertheless, we are discussing the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers to see whether there are practical options which may help to resolve funding difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale and the hon. Member for Newham, NorthWest (Mr. Banks) mentioned the plight of the African elephant. I recognise how concerned people are, but I cannot give the hon. Member for Newham, North-West the answers that

he wants. I shall, however, refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and if there is more information I will certainly give it to the hon. Gentleman. The Government understand and share the concern about the plight of the African elephant and we shall consider carefully any proposal to ban trade in African ivory in the light of available scientific evidence and in consultation with our European partners. Hong Kong is a party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and prohibits the import of ivory in all its forms, except from an approved source and subject to the issue of a licence by the Hong Kong Government.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West based much of his argument on an article that appeared in The Observer—or at least, he and The Observer obtained their information from the same source. I do not want to go into much detail because I do not want to say anything that might prejudice any inquiries that are taking place. The Government believe that the Observer article is inaccurate and misleading in several respects. Details of the case cannot be released and must be kept in confidence at present. However, the Government comply fully with the requirements of the ivory trade control procedures when considering all ivory import and export applications. The article criticises the Department of the Environment for issuing ivory permits, claiming that there are strong signs that ivory had been poached. The position is considerably more complicated than that, but I should prefer not to be drawn further on it at this stage. I hope that I can obtain the agreement of my colleagues to send my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West further information.
I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale about dogs and the dog registration scheme. As I think he knows—I regret having to say it to him—the Government do not intend to introduce a registration scheme for dogs. It would entail expensive bureaucracy and there is no evidence that it would be more successful than the old licensing system in dealing with the problem of stray dogs. The problem is caused by irresponsible owners, who would be least likely to comply with a registration scheme.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) raised the subject of ticket touts. I do not have much more to say than was said to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). I find the business pretty disagreeable, as does the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister. The activities of ticket touts are undoubtedly unpopular, but to abolish them would reduce or end the ability and readiness of reputable ticket agencies to buy unwanted tickets and make them available to those who would rather pay a premium price than miss an event. It would also restrict the freedom of individuals to sell unwanted tickets. A ban could lead to the development of an underground market selling tickets at even more highly inflated prices. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an important point about safety aspects, with particular reference to the recent tragedy. I shall see that his remarks are drawn to the attention of Lord Justice Taylor, who is considering these matters. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about South Africa. I had a feeling that I


had been there before, with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) bouncing up and down like a jack-in-the-box while my hon. Friend was trying to make his interesting speech. My hon. Friend knows more or less the answer that I shall give. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North says, it is in some ways more supportive of the hon. Gentleman's view than of my hon. Friend's view.
The Government are fully committed to the Gleneagles agreement, which requires Commonwealth Governments to withhold support and discourage sporting contacts by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa. Ministers were acting within the spirit of that policy. The agreement recognises that it is for individual Commonwealth Governments to determine in accordance with their laws how best to discharge those commitments. In the United Kingdom's perception of a free society, the Government's role is limited to giving advice and seeking to persuade—the Government have no powers to prevent individuals from visiting South Africa if they so choose.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the constituency case of Mr. Winstanley. The Government are fully committed to providing the most effective remedies possible for those parents who suffer the agony of child abduction. The Hague convention provides a sufficient remedy for abduction to those countries that have signed and ratified it. The Government hope that many more countries will ratify the convention. In other countries, what can be done is limited, apart from taking action in their courts. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will provide what consular support it can.
Anyone who is worried about the possible unlawful removal of a minor from the jurisdiction of the courts should contact the police, who will alert the immigration service at the ports and passport issuing offices. The more precise the information about a possible unlawful removal, the better the chances of it being prevented. There are also powers under the Family Law Act 1986 for the courts when making a custody order, to order the confiscation of a passport. That may not be of much comfort to the hon. Member for Makerfield, but it is important that those people who are worried about this problem should know what can be done to prevent abduction.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised two matters. He told the horrifying story of Friday night at Heathrow airport before the flight to Belfast, and the effects of the sunshine which others had been enjoying. His vivid description sounded awful. My only comfort is that there is no Government responsibility for the weather or British Airways in that sense, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of those with responsibility in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down referred also to pensioners in his constituency. The Government have kept pensioners' interests high on our list of priorities while maintaining the real value of the state retirement pension. We have pursued policies aimed at creating a stable economic environment so that pensioners' income from other sources increases and keeps its value longer. As a result, pensioners' average total net income increased by 23 per cent. in real terms during our first seven years in office. In addition, pensioners with no other source of income than state benefits saw their gross income increase from 33 per cent. of the average male manual worker's earnings in 1979 to 37 per cent. in 1986.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North raised an interesting subject, the issues arising from China. I do not think that he would expect me to make any detailed comment. Obviously, we are continuing to follow events closely. Martial law was declared in parts of Peking on 20 May. Army units have moved into Peking but are blocked by groups of demonstrators from reaching the centre. The situation is tense but calm. We are concerned that the Chinese authorities have found it necessary to impose martial law. We have urged all those involved to exercise moderation and restraint and we hope very much that the situation can be resolved peacefully. I very much agree with the comments on Hong Kong by the hon. Member for Walsall, North. It is natural that the people of Hong Kong are worried about developments in China and that they should wish to express their opinions, but there is no reason to think that recent events in China will effect Hong Kong's future.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to self-governing hospitals. They will remain firmly part of the National Health Service but will be well placed to give patients more choice and provide a better quality of service. Regional health authorities are still considering the many expressions of interest, but they will forward them to the Department of Health by the end of the month.

Mr. Winnick: What about ballots?

Mr. Wakeham: Further arrangements will be announced in due course. It is not for me to make them now. I am sorry, but I must keep going because I have to answer the points made by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is looking at me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said that he had to leave the Chamber, so I will deal with him later. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) raised the issue of gipsies and travelling people. She knows that I have similar problems in my constituency. It is a difficult problem and it is clear that more sites are urgently needed if we are to resolve the problems of unauthorised camping.
My hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and for Maidstone also referred to abortion. I cannot add to what I said during business questions on Thursday, and I have my words in front of me. Two issues come within my responsibility. I hope that there will be an opportunity before the next session for the House to reach a decision on the report of the Procedure Committee on private Members' time. There is also the wider question, which the Government are considering without any commitment, of whether the private Members' procedure is the right way to deal with the matter, or whether there is another way. I certainly have not made any commitment, but we are looking at that point.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned the Soviet expulsions. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to add anything to the full answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave earlier. All the proper steps were taken. However, I can say something about the Security Commission. It is not a standing body, but is normally appointed by the Prime Minister only to investigate any lapse in British security. It would not


normally be consulted on issues such as the expulsion of diplomats and it would not normally be expected to investigate such matters.
There has been a full inquiry about the events in Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman raised some points on which I have not had the opportunity of finding detailed information. I will refer those points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. If he considers that there is anything to add, he will write to the hon. Gentleman. If he does not, I will. The hon. Gentleman's remarks on Sir Leon Brittan seem to be a further example of his fertile and fervent imagination, and I have no comment to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone raised the subject of the safety of parachutists. Military pilots have parachute jumping areas marked on their charts for low flying and details are provided in the United Kingdom military handbook. The regulations for civil leisure flying, like parachuting, are a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and I will pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) raised the question of the care service in his constituency. I know of his interest in that. He suggests that we should look wider than the local authority for leadership in those matters. I will refer that to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) raised the subject of poverty. Considerations of definitions of poverty are a proper subject for debate, as is the question of whether the definition should be changed with changing circumstances in our society. No one denies that there are those who do not receive a reasonable share of material resouces for one reason or another. Our proper task is to ensure that our definition is appropriate and that the massive increase in resources is directed in the right direction. The total resources are now about £50 billion per year—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 26th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6th June.

Orders of the Day — National Maritime Museum Bill [Lords]

Not amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is fair to say that the Bill has received general support as it has passed through its various stages in this House and in another place. We had an interesting and lively Second Reading debate on a number of matters relating to the national maritime museum. However, there were no significant differences of opinion on the proposals of the Bill itself.
I will briefly remind the House of the purpose of this short Bill. It is to equip the board of trustees of the national maritime museum with similar powers to hold land and property to those already enjoyed by the other national museums and galleries. The Bill repeals a provision in the National Maritime Museum Act 1934, which vested the main property occupied by the museum at Greenwich in the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Bill proposes to vest the property with the museum's own board of trustees. There are a number of important safeguards about the use of the property which are repeated and updated in the present Bill.
The provisions have been welcomed by the museum and will allow the trustees and the director to use the magnificent buildings at Greenwich to even better effect than they have done previously. Since the Second Reading debate I have paid a visit to the museum and I am full of admiration for the imaginative leadership provided by the chairman, Lord Lewin, and the director, Richard Ormond and for the commitment of the staff, many of whom I had the chance to meet. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: As the Minister has said, we debated this matter on Second Reading and, in so far as the Bill gives new powers to the national maritime museum, the Opposition welcome it. But that museum and others will want to know about the funding, powers and responsibilities they are inheriting from the Government and today's debate gives another opportunity for the Minister to explain Government policy briefly and for the House to look in a little more detail at the inheritance of this museum and others.
The Minister explained that the Bill will transfer property from the Property Services Agency. Few hon. Members of any party have any brief for the PSA and I welcome the fact that the museum's property will be transferred from the PSA. However, the transfer makes sense only if it is properly financed, and on that point, the Minister appears to be self-satisfied. On Second Reading, he said:
the National Maritime museum is heading for success … the … museum is an outstanding success story."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 28 February 1989; c. 10.]


We agree with that in so far as the museum is well managed and we join the Minister is paying tribute to Mr. Richard Ormond. However, that success has been in spite of, rather than as a result of, Government policy.
There is a problem about the buildings that the Bill will give to the museum. The Government gave the museum £3·5 million this year for repairs and maintenance, but that sum will decline to £2·7 million next year, although the museum estimates that it needs £19 million over the next five years. By any estimate, there is a shortfall of at least £2 million. The repairs include such basics as new heating and wiring, roof repairs and floor strengthening. Does the Minister agree that, when he visited the museum, it was explained to him that the inheritance of the buildings is sour and difficult? If he agrees, what will he do about it? What does he advise the national maritime museum to do?
The Minister is giving new powers and responsibilities to the museum. Will he tell the museum that it should try to obtain more sponsorship? Prince Charles said last week that it is very much more difficult for the unglamorous side of a museum's world, such as repairs and maintenance, to appeal to sponsors. Will the Minister advise the museum to lengthen its five-year plan to 10 years and, effectively, put off dealing with the repairs and maintenance that are part of the backlog it will inherit from the PSA? That is the state of repairs and the extent of the problem that the Bill will give to the museum. It is a reflection of the degree of care and concern that the Government have shown for the national maritime museum and for other museums, which are being treated in the same way.
When seen in that context, the transfer of power and responsibilities to the museum, far from being an imaginative move, will look to many hon. Members and to the public not like a transfer of responsibility, but a way of passing the buck for repairs to the museum and of saying to the museum, "You get on with it. We have failed to do our job and have left you with a building with inadequate heating and wiring, leaking roofs and a floor that is not strong enough for many of your artefacts. Now you take over, although we won't fund you any more."
The House must understand that that is what will happen if it passes the Bill. The Bill is passing on the responsibility for a museum that has been inadequately financed in the past. It will pass on to the museum a £19 million bill for repairs and maintenance.
The national maritime museum is not the only museum that is suffering. The trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum and the Tate gallery have refused to accept the new powers in this Bill until the position on repairs and maintenance has been worked out. Legislation is not needed in those cases. The Victoria and Albert museum needs £125 million over the next 10 years and it will inherit a backlog of £50 million in repairs and maintenance from the PSA. Its grant from the Government is £7·6 million this year. It is no wonder that Sir Clifford Chetwood, a museum trustee, said recently:
Our buildings have suffered from years of neglect while they were maintained by the Government. We will not take over responsibility for them unless the Treasury is prepared to finance this backlog of work.
Lord Armstrong, the chairman of the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum has said that he agrees that the museum has
been underfunded over many years.
That is the backlog that the V and A has inherited and which the Bill passes on to the national maritime museum.
As I have said, the Tate gallery is in the same position, needing £27 million-worth of repairs and maintenance. It has buckets in its galleries; its roofs are being distorted by the sun, and the wiring is 50 years old. Three galleries had to be closed last year. Antiquated air conditioning causes high humidity and a temperature that affects many of the exhibits.
That is what is happening in many of our museums. However, on Second Reading and again this afternoon, the Government have shown that they do not seem to understand the crisis that is building up because of the past 10 years of neglect. In the Bill, the Government seek to pass on the legacy of neglect and underfunding to this museum and to others, telling them to get on with it. That is not good enough and the museum world knows that it is not good enough. Hon. Members must understand what they will be doing if the Bill is enacted. We must ask ourselves whether we trust the Government and whether they should be handing over museums in such a state.
The problems relate to security and insurance as well as to repairs and maintenance. The national maritime museum has no alarm system when it is open. It relies entirely on the eyes, diligence and alertness of its wardens. Once the doors are opened in the morning, there is no alarm system. Not only are the exhibits not alarmed, but there is no insurance whatsoever and the Tate is about to inherit severe fire protection problems from the PSA.
The Government have said that everything is wonderful and that they are spending so much money but in reality by 1991 the building programme budget, of which the Minister is so proud, will be £55 million per year. The director of the Museums Association, Dr. Patrick Boylon, has said that an extra £200 million is needed to undertake repairs. However, in 1989–90 the Government are increasing that budget by only 2·1 per cent., and in 1991 it will go up to the magic figure of 2·5 per cent. With inflation at 8 per cent., those museums are running backwards, even without allowing for the fact that, in the south of England, inflation in the cost of building repairs is estimated to be running at 20 per cent. The House must understand the inheritance that it will be passing on to the national maritime museum.
Does the Minister agree with the figures that I have given? If not, what are his figures? Why does he refuse yet again to face up to reality and conduct a national audit so that he, the museum world and the public can see how serious the position is? He may well say that the Opposition are doom-mongering and taking selective figures but let us have the facts and a national audit so that we can see whether the figures given to me by the Victoria and Albert museum, the Tate gallery and the national maritime museum are wrong. If they are wrong, the Government ought to say exactly where they are wrong and conduct a national audit to make the facts clear.
The fist element of what we are doing in the Bill is handing over underfunded buildings. The second element relates to the powers of the trustees. As the Minister has already said, the present trustees of the national maritime museum are very good and have real expertise in nautical affairs. They include Lord Lewin; Mr. Wright, a nautical architect; Mr. Corlett, a ship architect; Mr. Tidbury, who is involved with the Mary Rose trust, and Dame Naomi James, who is a sailor. That is not the case with the Victoria and Albert which has no specialist museum, librarian or other appropriate academic on its board. This legislation would hand over responsibility without making


sure that the board, unlike the board of trustees of the British museum, is composed of people with relevant expertise in the running of museums.
As we said on Second Reading, the Government ought to do something about that. We are expecting the trustees to take on responsibilities that they are not in a position to fulfil. Last year's report by the Museums and Galleries Commission said that it was unreasonable,
to make trustees responsible for raising money to meet museums' basic needs".
It also said that if we carried on like that, suitable people would not be willing to serve as trustees. However, that is precisely what the Government are doing and that is the state of affairs that they are perpetuating with the Bill.
In the past, Governments of both parties accepted that they were responsible for the nation's heritage and for funding museums. All that has changed. The Government now have a policy of saying, "We will give you so much and no more. You find the rest." Trustees work part-time; they are not executives and cannot operate like the board of a public company. They are not there to raise money, so it is a totally unreasonable and misconceived policy to expect them to finance the museums and to raise money for them when those museums are the responsibility of the whole community and society. That is a responsibility that the Government have neglected. They will not accept it, and in the Bill they are legislating for the passing on of such responsibilities.
The truth is that the Government have no museums strategy. In recent weeks there has been an interesting conference entitled "Museums 2000" which was organised by the Museums Association. Museum experts came from 12 or 14 countries and all paid tribute to the high degree of professionalism and the technical expertise to be found in British museums. They agreed that we continue to lead the world in conservation, curatorial skills, exhibition and professional skills. However, they also said that in terms of policy and in the thinking about the role of museums in our culture, we were way behind the rest of the world.
Because of the Government, museums are not clear about what is expected of them. They are not sure how they fit into a cultural policy because the Government do not have a cultural policy. They are not sure how they fit into an educational policy. They are not sure what weight that they should give to the tourist and leisure role. They are not sure of the responsibilities of local authorities. Those basic questions about the role of museums in our society have not been answered by the Government and they are certainly not addressed in the Bill.
In this legislation we are handing over to the national maritime museum—and to others—new responsibilities in a strategy and policy vacuum. What are we preserving? For whom, why and how? What is our attitude towards our heritage? Because the Government have never addressed such questions, they do not have any answers. If one asked the Government, "If these museums did not exist, what sort of museums would you be setting up, for what purpose, where and in what sort of business location, with what relation to broadcasting and to modern means of communication?", one would realise that the Government had no answer. They have never produced anything on paper and apparently they have never done any thinking about policy or strategy or about the role played by museums in our culture.
That is especially true——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to speak specifically to the Bill. Although I have been interested in what he has been saying, he is going wide of the Bill now.

Mr. Fisher: It is particularly true of the national maritime museum. We accept that our nautical heritage is even less protected than our heritage on land. When the Minister visited the museum last week he will no doubt have been given its new publication, "Heritage at Sea" which lays out exactly the problems. The legislation—the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973—is inadequate. There is no equivalent to English Heritage for nautical sites.
We are in a catch-22 situation in that the Merchant Shipping Act encourages and almost demands that all artefacts are sold to pay the fee of 7·5 per cent. that is required from salvors and the Department of Transport. That added cost means that museums cannot afford to buy, and when wrecks and sites are discovered they are broken up rather than held together. The Mary Rose is a notable exception, but it is indeed an exception. Our nautical heritage is being destroyed by the very legislation that was meant to protect it. The document recently published by the national maritime museum shows that we need new legislation, a national inventory of sites and a maritime heritage protection agency.
Why are the Government not addressing those problems? Why are the Government devolving powers and responsibilities to the national maritime museum in this Bill without addressing what the museum is about and without taking on board the important "Heritage at Sea" document that was published by the staff of the national maritime museum? Why do they not incorporate all those points and give the money to the national maritime museum? Indeed, why do they not also give it the legislative context in which it can get on with the job that we should be giving it in the Bill?
I fear that the reason the Bill transfers responsibilities to the national maritime museum without providing the money to carry out those responsibilities is that the Government believe in the free market for museums. They are prepared, reluctantly and grudgingly, to maintain the present level of funding, but no more. They say that others, whether independent museums or sponsors, should get on with the job because they will not give them any further help. New thinking and new money from the Government is desperately needed. The Minister should follow the French example, where the Government, with all-party support, have just voted a 12·5 per cent. increase for the arts and museums budget. If the Minister announced a 12·5 per cent. increase in funding for the national maritime museum, he would have all-party support.
Although we are not prepared to vote against the Bill because we support its general thrust, we feel that the Government are handing over to the national maritime museum problems that can be dealt with only by additional funding.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker,


underline the need for more general debate on this issue. The massive deterioration of so many of our treasures will cause the most appalling problems. Many buildings are aging, and such mundane matters as wiring, lead piping and so on are putting enormous strains on our heritage.
I want to ask the Minister a gentle question. Is it the Government's policy that funds should be given as a priority to those areas of our maritime heritage where deterioration has already begun—in fact, the equivalent of rescue archaeology? I suspect that the Government are aware that public interest in our heritage is escalating; it is not simply a question of Huggin hill or Roman remains. The House should take that into account.

Mr. Luce: I shall first respond to the short speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) before dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). The hon. Member for Linlithgow rightly referred to the increasing public interest in heritage and, by implication, more widely in the arts. Indeed, there is a relentless upsurge of interest. In the financial year 1988–89 there were 80 million attendances at museums, including local authority museums, private sector museums and national institutions. It is Museums Year, during which it is estimated that there will be 100 million attendances at museums. That is a story not of collapse but of a dramatic expansion of interest. New museums are opening at a rate of one every fortnight. I accept that the Government have a special obligation to our national institutions, museums and galleries, which is why we give more than £150 million of taxpayers' money to them.
During the past three or four years, I have received representations about the amount of money available—or not available—for the maintenance of our great institutions. I understand the point that it is not easy to find sponsorship for rewiring or for mending roofs. That is why, when I launched the three-year funding policy in November 1987, I said that we would shift greater emphasis and more resources to building and maintenance. Some of the institutions have been operating for a long time, and their maintenance problems have become more acute. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, inflation costs are especially acute for building and maintenance. However, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would sometimes acknowledge that I have responded to the problem and shifted additional resources to deal with it—for example, £48 million this year, a 50 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979–80. Over the period to 1991–92, the figure will be £55 million a year.
The hon. Gentleman threw out a great many figures. We are discussing the National Maritime Museum Bill. The hon. Gentleman understandably asked about the amount of money for the building programme. This year it will be just under £3·5 million, and I have earmarked £2,770,000 for next year and £3,200,000 for the following year. However, that is only a partial allocation, because for the second and third years I prefer to wait until closer to the time to gauge the real building and maintenance problems. I am holding back a certain sum of money that I can then allocate. In fact, therefore, the total sum for the next three years will be a great deal larger than that shown in the chart.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept the national maritime museum's estimate that its five-year plan to deal with the backlog of repairs and maintenance will cost £19 million? The current grants announced will fall about £2 million short of that figure.

Mr. Luce: The museum has submitted fresh figures as a result of the corporate strategy that I asked each institution to supply each year, and we are examining those figures. The museum has a five-year strategy, whereas the funding covers a three-year strategy. A considerable sum of money has been allocated for the next three years, and I shall take into account the figures that the museum has submitted, looking five years ahead. I want to ensure that the building is maintained at a decent standard.
The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he had never visited the museum, but I cannot believe that. I am glad to see him shaking his head—of course he has visited it. Nevertheless, when listening to parts of his speech I wondered whether we were living in slightly different worlds. I do not suggest that everything is perfect with our national institutions; I accept that there are pressures on building and maintenance, especially for the older institutions where the pressures of inflation are more acute. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be truthful and acknowledge that what the museum is achieving is a remarkable story. The 700,000 attendances last year show the general support for the museum and the growing number of people who want to visit it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the high calibre of the trustees and the cross-section of interests that they represent. They do a marvellous job. I strongly believe in the concept of devolving responsibility to the museums and galleries. Of course, that means more responsibilities for the chairman, trustees and director, and I acknowledge that the policy must be carried out with care. It is right to have less central control—a proposition that the Labour party does not support.
A seminar on nautical sites was held recently following a report on underwater archaeology. I am interested in the recommendations of the report and I am aware of the concern about the preservation of the sites and the work that is needed on them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not have direct responsibility in that area, but it is something that I think the Government should take seriously. A number of Departments have responsibility, including the Department of Transport.
Without going outside the terms of reference of the Bill, I hope that I have responded to the main points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I hope also that the House will agree that the national maritime museum is doing a remarkable job, that it is not surprising that attendance is increasing at a remarkable rate, and that the strategy of joint funding between the public and private sectors is the right basis for a successful future. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Atomic Energy Bill [Lords]

As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have debated this short Bill on Second Reading and in two sittings of the Standing Committee. Therefore, I will keep my opening remarks short. If the House wishes me to do so, I will respond to the points made in the debate.
One purpose of the Bill is to raise the financial limit imposed on British Nuclear Fuels from its present level of £1·5 billion to £2 billion. That will allow the company to complete its current massive investment programme, in particular in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, THORP. The House will know that the company has already secured over £4 billion of contracts associated with this plant, £2·8 billion of which are for overseas customers. It will make BNFL, for instance, the largest single yen earner in the country. Investment is also required to the tune of £500 million to reduce the radioactive liquid discharges over the next four years from their present negligible levels virtually to zero. Recent expenditure has reduced those discharges to less than 5 per cent. of the already low levels in 1979.
The Bill also enables the Health and Safety Executive to recover the costs of nuclear safety research from nuclear site licensees and from applicants for licences. Finally, clause 5 makes necessary changes to the law to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the national convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency. Those changes in particular are welcomed by all hon. Members.
The Opposition, although not voting against this Bill, have tended to speak to it with clothes pegs clasped firmly over their noses. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in particular has clearly found the nuclear industry distasteful. He is in line with his party. As we now know, through its policy review, if it were elected to office, the Labour party would ensure that the nuclear industry is brought to a standstill. The relevant paragraph of that document states:
In these circumstances, we will not therefore invest in new nuclear stations, nor will we compensate for that by running existing stations beyond their normal life. In practice, this will mean that a majority of existing stations will be decommissioned by the end of the century, and our dependence on nuclear power will therefore progressively diminish".
In the context of a Bill related to the nuclear industry, Conservative Members are bound to ask how a party which will rely for its electricity production almost exclusively on coal can possibly be serious about addressing the problem of carbon dioxide pollution of the atmosphere. What is more, what would happen to electricity consumers if Mr. Scargill's influence were ever reincarnated and had the damaging effect on coal that it had in the past, or if oil prices ever went through the roof again? Perhaps that subject is for another day.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Minister goes from strength to strength, bringing into an energy debate—whether it be atomic energy or electricity—the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, and seeking to avoid questions about Government legislation by referring to the aforesaid gentleman. I am grateful to the Minister for reading the recent Labour party policy review, although it is not a matter for debate today. Perhaps in the future we can debate in greater detail what the Labour party will do in office—I am pleased to say that the time is not too far away—rather than the present Government's plans. Meanwhile, perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's plans for the nuclear industry.
Although it was considered in only two sittings of the Committee, the Bill has given us an opportunity to debate the future of BNFL and the nuclear power industry as a whole. We have certainly been able to highlight the ever-escalating costs of the nuclear fuel cycle, especially those of decommissioning. Decommissioning costs rose sharply in the recent past and, as the Minister has agreed, they are bound to be unpredictable because we have not been through the process yet and some of it is a long way off. The only prediction that he has been able to make is that decommissioning costs are likely to rise in the future. In Committee I asked the Minister to give a detailed breakdown of the £4·6 million held by BNFL for decommissioning its plant. He said that he could not respond immediately but would see whether he could obtain more information. Has he done that? BNFL has only two reactors—the remainder consists of ponds and chemical plants.
Again in Committee, during the discussion on new clause 1, I referred to the moneys set aside by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board for decommissioning nuclear plant. We are led to believe that the CEGB and the SSEB have about £4·2 billion for that, but according to a parliamentary answer to a question by the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) the CEGB has only £568 billion for decommissioning costs. How much is held by the SSEB for decommissioning costs? Is the balance the cost of reprocessing and the cost of nuclear waste management disposal? It is a substantial amount.
The Minister said that a Labour Government would operate schedule 12 of the Electricity Bill if the time scale for decommissioning nuclear reactors is reduced in future. The Minister knows that schedule 12 covers more than decommissioning. It allows for grants for the storage and reprocessing of nuclear fuel and for the treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive waste. To provide grants for those functions would effectively be to take over the business of BNFL when the Government are allowing the industry to renegotiate its cost-plus contracts. That would be underwriting from the public purse if anything went wrong.
The industry does not have a good record in estimating costs. The Minister has said that costs are bound to be unpredictable. It would be wrong to commit a future Labour Government to such expenditure. Whoever invests in national nuclear power and the Scottish nuclear industry should accept its financial liabilities. We believe that the Government intend to float the nuclear industry. The liabilities should be accepted by those who are to pay.
We should make it clear that we will not bale out the privatised nuclear power industry should it want money in future for its day-to-day business.
The Minister spoke about what the Labour party would do in government, but what are the Government's current plans? They appear to be running headlong towards a new nuclear power programme. On 4 May in committee I asked the Minister whether we were to have a larger family of PWRs than originally intended. He failed to reply to that question, and I assume that it slipped his mind. What is the thinking in Government circles? Is it in favour of a massive increase in the PWR programme on the basis that that will mitigte against the greenhouse effect? The Government seem to be out of touch with reality regarding nuclear fuel. An example of that was the Minister's description of the nuclear waste reprocessing industry as an "environmentally pure" industry. I have never heard anyone who works full-time in that industry use such a phrase.
Greenhouse gases are a new event for the Government and they are using them as an excuse to wield their prejudice against the British coal mining industry. They are not, however, prejudiced against coal mining elsewhere in the world, as I understand that they are encouraging our ever-increasing imports of coal. To describe the reprocessing industry as "environmentally pure" is a giant leap away from the opinion that has been held by most people and by that very industry.
At the Prime Minister's seminar on 26 April, Mr. Currie of the energy technology support unit presented a paper in which he used the quaint phrase
for the purposes of this presentation",
and then went on to make assumptions about the future based on the use of nuclear power to provide 50 per cent. of baseload electricity. To generate that amount, 24 PWRs would have to be constructed by the year 2020. The Minister concluded by quoting what the Labour party policy review says about the nuclear industry, but I challenge him to answer the question that I posed in Committee. What is the Government's position in relation to the nuclear industry in the future? Does he accept what the civil servants said at the Prime Minister's seminar—that to generate 50 per cent. of baseload electricity would require the construction of 24 PWRs by the year 2020? What do the Conservatives think about the future of the nuclear industry? The Minister knows full well what the Labour party thinks. It is extraordinary that even the Government could contemplate such a massive increase in nuclear capacity, even if it were possible.
As I said in Committee, the nuclear industry is under siege, with its economic and environmental excesses being exposed to a nation which increasingly does not share the Government's complacency about our nuclear future. The astronomic and rising costs of the nuclear fuel cycle have been put on record—from the massive capital cost through to the cost of reprocessing and the unknown but undoubtedly enormous cost of decommissioning and waste disposal.
The nuclear industry recognises that it cannot build on greenfield sites. Its application for four new PWRs are on existing nuclear reactor sites. It now plans to dispose of its waste products in deep disposal sites at Sellafield and Dounreay—existing nuclear sites. Since we have discussed this in Committee, I have heard that those at Dounreay are sceptical of taking on the liability of deep disposal. It may be that the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive


—Nirex—will be forced to use one site alone in Great Britain which is prepared to accept the legacy of liability represented by nuclear waste.
How many Conservative Members will volunteer to have a PWR in their constituency if the Government go ahead with their nuclear madness? Is the Minister prepared to have a PWR in his backyard, as he seems to want to commit the Government to further nuclear reactors in the future? Alternatively, are we to assume that we shall run out of seaside sites for nuclear reactors? In years to come, will such nuclear reactors take over fossil-fuel power stations? Does the Minister believe that PWRs will be built in constituencies such as that held by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), which has a number of fossil-fuel power stations currently under threat? Will the new families of PWRs be built in such areas? The Government are in a state of confusion about the nuclear power industry. Perhaps the Minister will explain what their plans are. How big a tab will present and future taxpayers have to pick up for this costly—both environmentally and in money terms—industry?
We accept most of the Bill. We did not oppose it in Committee or on Second Reading, and we do not intend to oppose it today. Nevertheless, if the Government go ahead with the anticipated large-scale development of PWRs in the mistaken belief that that is the answer to the problem of greenhouse gases, exactly where will that development take place and in whose constituency? Who will be asked to accept the extension of the nuclear industry? The Opposition—and, I am sure, millions of other people—would like to know the answers.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I was not a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill, but I read the record of its proceedings today, and I found them absorbing. I am decisively anti-nuclear, and I am in tune with the majority of our population. The British people do not want any more nuclear power stations; and, frankly, they do not want to see any more money squandered on the industry.
The first clause of the Bill will increase the borrowing capabilities of BNFL from £1·5 billion to £2 billion. Therefore, the industry will be able to avail itself of an additional £500 million of public funds. In common with the public, I believe that that is throwing good money after bad, because the record of that industry inspires no confidence. BNFL has a history of leaks at Windscale, now Sellafield, and a history of escalating costs. One need only study its accounts for last year to see that the cost of reprocessing Magnox fuel increased by 27 per cent. in one year, or by 35 per cent. in real terms in the past two years.
Poor Sellafield may well feel that its days are numbered because the technology of reprocessing is now unnecessary. I noticed that, in Committee, Conservative Members asked why it was necessary to reprocess nuclear waste. The old justification was that we needed uranium and plutonium, but then we were faced with the embarrassment of the waste. We no longer need uranium, as it is cheap to buy on the world market and there are abundant reserves of it all over the world. We do not need the

plutonium, especially as the Government are now winding down their fast breeder reactor programme, about which I am delighted.
What we are talking about is the long-term death of the nuclear industry. We do not need the uranium or the plutonium, nor do we need the waste. The technology of reprocessing merely multiplies the volume of waste by a factor of 100. It creates and adds to the embarrassment and it is expensive to store and dispose of such waste.
It is clear from the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the PWRs that the Government are intent on building that their wastes will not be reprocessed. We shall do as the United States has always done, and store wastes without reprocessing. It is possible to use dry storage for PWRs and AGRs. That involves much cheaper technology than other methods of storing, and it is environmentally much more acceptable than reprocessing.
Where does that leave Sellafield and the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? It is at THORP that the big expansion at the Sellafield plant lies. THORP will be used to reprocess oxide fuel. It seems that too much money has been spent there already. Contracts have been signed that may be expensive to cancel. The costs of THORP will be £1·5 billion, five times the original estimate. The justification for it is that there are orders in the pipeline for £4 billion-worth of waste to be reprocessed over the next 10 years.
The Minister appeared to be proud in Committee that 70 per cent. of the orders are from overseas. Should we be proud that we are importing nuclear wastes? Surely that comes within the same category as the importation of toxic wastes. It is nothing to be proud of. Most of the British people would prefer not to import massive quantities of toxic wastes for landfill and for incineration, and the same goes for nuclear waste. They do not want to see Britain becoming the nuclear dustbin of the world, but that is what THORP is all about. It is only that activity that makes it financially viable.
What will happen to the wastes from Japan and elsewhere after they have been reprocessed at THORP? What happens to the plutonium and, most especially, the long-lived radioactive wastes, the caesium 137 and the strontium 90? Will they be sent back to Japan and elsewhere? Will that happen in five years, 10 years, or in the indefinite future? The British people are fed up with waste importation.
I am disappointed that the Government could not agree that the Bill should be amended so that it became the duty of any private or public company holding or operating nuclear installations to publish annually the current estimated cost of decommissioning such installations. Decommissioning is a critically important cost. Decommissioning nuclear installations could be much more expensive than constructing them. It is fair to ask for annual estimates of decommissioning costs. The facts should be available to the British public. During consideration of the Electricity Bill, we heard calls for transparency in the costs of nuclear power. We want the costs of decommissioning to be transparent. The costs should appear in the accounts of British Nuclear Fuels plc every year and in those of the Central Electricity Generating Board. There should be a detailed explanation of the technology and detailed estimates of the costs.
It is revealing that the nuclear industry used to think that, when nuclear plants became clapped out, they could be disposed of at sea. That view is incredible, now that we


know more about nuclear wastes and radiation. At one time, however, the nuclear industry thought that clapped-out reactors and plant at Sellafield, for example, that came to the end of their life could be disposed of at sea. I am glad that we have moved on slightly since then. However, the fact remains that we need accurate estimates of decommissioning costs, and these should be revised annually.
We know that the decommissioning of nuclear power stations is to be deferred to stage 3, to 100 years hence. What if it is possible technically to decommission them within 20 to 30 years? Once it is technically feasable to decommission nuclear installations at the end of their life, they should be restored to green sites as soon as it is technically feasible to do so. That means that the 2 per cent. discount rate becomes much less relevant. The cost of decommissioning multiplies by a factor of two, three or four. We should have reasonable estimates of the costs and they should he prepared annually. The technology and the estimates should be in line with international experience.

Mr. Frank Haynes: It appears that the Minister is not living in the real world. He is such a nice chap outside the Chamber, but when he speaks from the Dispatch Box he is as vicious as I do not know what. He becomes really nasty when he talks about nuclear power.
The Minister has spoken about the Labour party's policy. Ministers take every opportunity to attack the Labour party. We are approaching the European elections and the Minister is probably electioneering on behalf of Conservative candidates. The Labour party has never changed its policy on nuclear energy—the Minister appears to be surprised. It seems that he does not do his homework. He should not attack the Labour party for its nuclear policy when its spokesmen are really reiterating what they have said in the past.

Mr. Michael Spicer: That is an extraordinary comment. I am prompted to ask the hon. Gentleman how it was that, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy, he launched a massive nuclear building programme. He was a member of the Labour party, and I believe that he still is. The same party is committed now to destroying the programme which he almost invented.

Mr. Haynes: An individual is entitled to express his own opinion. I am talking about Labour party policy on nuclear energy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may have done what the Minister suggests, but I stand in the Chamber as a Labour Member who believes in the Labour party's policy on nuclear energy. The Minister should come off it and get his facts right before he makes such stupid remarks from the Government Dispatch Box. Mind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he makes one or two such remarks on these matters and on others. I know that, as I served as a member of the Committees that considered the Electricity Bill and the Bill that is before us.
The Minister has made other stupid comments. This is really a cover-up. The Secretary of State for Energy and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy often refer to the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. That really is rubbish. I have some news for the Minister. The president of the Union of Democratic

Mineworkers has applied to join the Labour party. I hope that the Minister has taken that on board and can understand the feelings about nuclear energy which are prevalent in Nottinghamshire. I am convinced that those feelings are related to the Government's nuclear policy. People are reacting against it. The Minister can come off it and stop referring to the president of the NUM across the Dispatch Box.
In his argument tonight and in Committee upstairs, the Minister has always argued that the provision of fossil fuel for the electricity industry is more expensive than nuclear energy. What a load of rubbish. That is another cover-up. We know that the cost of nuclear power will be way above the cost of fossil fuels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was right to refer to the cost of decommissioning. That cost is in addition to the provision of PWRS. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) suggested that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) would not have a nuclear power station in her constituency. I will tell the Minister why she would not have one. She would not use the argument that she was against nuclear power. Instead, she would claim that Derbyshire was a nuclear-free zone. She is right; Derbyshire is a nuclear-free zone.
Recently, there were county council elections in Derbyshire and the Labour party took more seats in Derbyshire even though there is a great deal of expenditure on the people, especially on people in need. Of course, there is also expenditure on advertising the fact that Derbyshire is a nuclear-free zone.
In Committee on the Electricity Bill and on the Atomic Energy Bill, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. T. Skeet) was thrashing the issue. He wanted to make more progress. He did not want four PWRs as planned; he wanted the eight which were decided in the first place.

Mr. Barron: Where is the hon. Member now ?

Mr. Haynes: He is not in the Chamber tonight. He has a problem: I read in the press over the weekend that his constituency party has decided to ditch him.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. A Third Reading debate is not an easy debate. The hon. Gentleman is extremely experienced and he knows that the debate must relate to what is in the Bill. The matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised now are not in the Bill.

Mr. Haynes: I was about to refer to a PWR being situated in Bedfordshire, North. The hon. Member for Bedforshire, North was pushing for PWRs in Committee, but he made it clear that he did not want one in his constituency.
When we drive down the motorway, we can all see the notices which have been painted on the bridges—all the notices are illegal—stating, "We don't want nuclear dumping here." However, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North was pushing like mad in Committee for PWRs, nuclear power, and all the blooming rest of it. However, it seems that he is going to be dumped for pushing for those projects. He has had his come-uppance. He may stand as an independent, but we shall see.
The argument is all about cost. People write to me and attend my surgeries because they are concerned about the Government's nuclear energy programme, particularly


their new PWRs. Where will those PWRs go? We do not want one in Ashfield. I can tell the Minister, on my constituents' behalf, "We ain't gonna have one." That is something else that he can put in his pipe and smoke—although he does not smoke a pipe. The people are making themselves heard and I am speaking on their behalf.
Many Conservative Members push like mad for nuclear power and the new PWRs. They support them in the Division Lobbies. However, they do not want them in their own back gardens. It is rather like the planning applications to which the Secretary of State for the Environment says, "Not in my back garden, but they can be in someone else's." I hope that the Minister gets the message. There is no doubt that the Government will get their Bill, but we shall continue to fight it.
The Minister never takes any notice when I am talking to him. He is always doodling. When I was addressing the Minister in a very important debate on mining subsidence recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, "He's doodling." He was not listening to me.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I am making notes on the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Haynes: If the hon. Gentleman is making notes, that is different. I hope that he will say something that I can enjoy and really take on board, and which I can take back to my constituents.
I repeat: when it comes to the next general election, the Minister will get a shock. Nuclear energy policy will change when my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are on the Government Benches and when Conservative Members are in opposition.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked about repatriation of nuclear waste. As the hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on such matters, he should know that, since 1976, all contracts with foreign countries incorporate options for the repatriation of nuclear waste arising out of reprocessing. The Government's intention is that those options will be exercised, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I made one or two notes on the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who accused me of not living in the real world because I do not agree with his view that Labour party policy on the nuclear industry has been consistent. The hon. Gentleman's party, which now wishes to destroy the nuclear industry, is the same party that spawned the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). At the time in question, the then right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was not just any member of the Labour party and entitled to hold offbeat views on nuclear energy, such as those that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends expressed recently; he was the Secretary of State for Energy. In that capacity, he launched a number of nuclear power stations.
Some of them have not worked as well as he imagined, whereas all those launched during the period of office of the present Government show every sign of doing so. Any shortcomings should not all be laid at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, he formulated present nuclear policy and the power stations associated with it.
I say to the hon. Member for Ashfield something that he often says to me: "Come off it." It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there has not been something of a volte-face by the Labour party. It is extraordinary that, if Labour ever return to government—which most people in this country who think about such matters hope will never happen—they will be dedicated to the destruction of the nuclear power industry.
The Labour party's inconsistency is not confined to the past. I have an invitation to a national conference entitled "Energy for the Future", sponsored by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, at which the speakers making the case for the fast reactor will include the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There is inconsistency not only between the Opposition's present policies and those to which they have devoted themselves when in government, but within their own ranks. When it suits them, Members of Parliament representing interests that are served well by the nuclear industry appear at conferences supporting its future, while the mainstream element of the Labour party now apparently wishes to ditch its past policies. It is entirely wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any consistency with past policies.

Mr. Haynes: Smile.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman asks me to smile, but the future of the nuclear industry is a serious matter.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked me what the Government's policy was on the future of the industry. He claimed that he now had a firm policy, and suggested that the Government did not. The Government's position has been made clear several times: we will ensure through the non-fossil fuel obligation that the nuclear industry is maintained at about its present capacity, which means building four pressurised water reactors to replace the aging Magnoxes.

Mr. Barron: Is the Minister contradicting the paper presented to the seminar held by the Prime Minister on 26 April? That paper, introduced by Mr. Ken Currie of the energy technology support unit, dealt with the options for mitigating the greenhouse effect and suggested the physical possibility of building 24 new PWRs by the year 2020. Is the Minister saying that the paper was wrong, and that the four PWRs that are public knowledge are the only ones that were in the Government's mind either before or after the seminar?

Mr. Spicer: The papers presented at the seminar contained the views of those who presented them. The reason why there is such a thing as collective responsibility—the reason why there are Cabinets, and why policy becomes policy only when Ministers have announced it to Parliament as such—is that discussion must take place, in some cases on the basis of hypothetical material in papers. That particular paper gave the views and the prognosis of one individual, which is all that it claimed to do.
Discussion takes place both inside and outside Government about all sorts of possible scenarios, but the Government's policy is absolutely clear: we need four PWRs if we are to maintain our present nuclear capacity. What is not clear is the Opposition's policy on the environment. They spend a great deal of time talking about the environment, but things are different when it comes to hard practical reality.
Let us assume that what is meant by "impingement" on the environment is the effect of, for instance, carbon dioxide emissions on the atmosphere. The Opposition must explain how they would satisfy what is expected, according to every assumption that I have come across, to be a rising demand for electricity——

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose——

Mr. Spicer: May I just finish this point? There will be a rising demand for electricity, even if conservation measures are taken into account. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say. How are the Opposition to satisfy that rising demand with what is essentially a coal-based power station system? Everyone knows that most emissions of CO2 are from coal-fired power stations. How on earth will the Opposition be able to develop an honest policy toward the environment if they maintain their anti-nuclear stance?

Mr. Williams: I am pleased that the Minister corrected himself in mid-paragraph when 1 rose to intervene. I thought that he made it abundantly clear during the proceedings on the Electricity Bill that the Bill said nothing about the environment and conservation, or about environmental pollution. The fact is that four pressurised water reactor power stations would make a very small contribution to environmental protection. If the money that is to be spent on their construction were to be invested in energy conservation, it would make a far greater contribution to environmental protection. It is baffling that the Government and the Minister should be deaf to the pleas of so many people to take an interest in conservation. They will have to take it seriously at some stage.

Mr. Spicer: Everything associated with the Electricity Bill relates to the environment. If one thinks through what the electricity industry does to the environment, it has—[Interruption.] I see that you are growing a little restless, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been asked specifically about the environment and I ought to deal with it. The future of the nuclear industry is bound up with the question of whether additional money is to be given to British Nuclear Fuels, plc. One constraint on the future of the nuclear industry, and therefore on the money that is given to it, might be the environment. That is why I was briefly addressing the question, and I hope that I shall be permitted to answer the hon. Member for Carmarthen.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I should be obliged if all hon. Members, whether speaking from the Back Benches or the Front Benches, would deal only with the Bill which is having its Third Reading.

Mr. Spicer: Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen about the effect of the nuclear industry on the environment. Clause 1, in particular, deals with the provision of additional money for the industry. That ought to be welcomed by hon. Members. British Nuclear Fuels plc will be making major new investments in cleaning up the pollution caused by the industry. The hon. Gentleman says that it is untrue for the Government to argue that the nuclear industry will benefit the environment. The Electricity Bill requires all companies to have regard to environmental questions. It does not require them to enhance the beauty of the landscape.

Unlike the water industry, it is not that kind of industry. However the Electricity Bill and this Bill will ensure that the industry has a multiplicity of sources of supply, in addition to coal.
The fact that the industry pollutes the environment by emitting SO2and CO2 is directly addressed in the Bill. The Opposition grumble about the Bill and make speeches against the use of nuclear power. An industry that was exclusively dependent upon coal would pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere, even allowing for conservation procedures. We consider that the Opposition are hypocritical to adopt that posture when a Bill such as this will provide additional finance for the nuclear industry to protect the environment.
We have never denied that coal will play an essential part in the future, but when considering whether more money should be allowed for investment at BNFL, we think it is essential that nuclear power should be a component of electricity generation. We believe that fervently for many reasons, not the least of which is that which the Opposition always try to cram down our throats—improving the environment.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Barron: Yes.
I asked the Minister more than the one question, which he avoided in his attempted answer. I asked about the breakdown of decommissioning costs in the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. If he does not have those figures, I am quite prepared to have them by letter.

Mr. Spicer: I apologise for not giving an answer on the BNFL breakdown, but perhaps I can help by saying that the £4·6 billion covers all the BNFL sites and includes the reactors at Calderhall and Chapel Cross. BNFL estimates that it will cost about £750 million to decommission those reactors—there are four at each site. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some of the information he wants.

Mr. Barron: It goes some way towards an answer. We shall have to go into more detail about the decommissioning costs of each generator, but I am grateful for the information.
We support the Bill. We said at the outset in the debate on the limitation on borrowing powers that we wanted to make specific points about this industry and its expenditure. The growth of nuclear reprocessing costs has been quite astounding. The Government have been very honest in their defence of reprocessing and the disposal of nuclear waste. I am sure that the Minister's phrase about it being an environmentally pure industry will go down for posterity. I know few people who will defend that position.
The Minister went on at some length about the Labour party's stance. Would he accept a PWR in his constituency? Would his constituents accept a waste disposal facility? We have yet to hear where the Government, who seem to be in favour of the expansion of the nuclear industry, will site these reactors. I am prepared to give way to the Minister if he will tell me whether his constituents are prepared to provide an inland site for a PWR. I asked that question throughout the Committee


stage and it was unanswered then just as it is unanswered now. Everybody knows it is not environmentally pure. Rather, it is a legacy for future generations.
We shall support the Bill. We are pleased about the international convention which has been brought about because of the accident at Chernobyl. This and any future Government will help if such a disaster should ever befall the earth again.
While we support the Bill, we cannot support this industry, which the Minister believes should be a component of our electricity generation. It is too expensive in terms of the economics of electricity generation, the economics of the nuclear fuel cycle and the cost of the legacy of nuclear waste for future generations.
We support the Bill but we do not support the Government's rush to expand a nuclear power industry that has failed the British people and the people of the world during the last 30 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.
The order is the latest in a series of such orders, the last of which was passed in 1986. Their main purpose is to adjust, as necessary, certain limits imposed by statute on financial operations and to deal with other routine finance matters, including the simplification and rationalisation of accounting procedures. Those are described in the explanatory memorandum. The only article to which I need draw the attention of the House in particular is article 3, which will enable a capital surplus of some £365 million in the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund to be used to write off some of the loans to be made over the years to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
The surplus came about because the 1986 Financial Provisions Order abolished a number of obsolete funds and transferred their assets to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. Savings on interests charges on loans written off will release resources of some £50 million a year for alternative and more productive public expenditure. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The House will be pleased that I do not intend to speak at length. I thank the Minister of State for taking us so quickly through the provisions of the latest draft order.
The Minister referred to the most recent draft order, that of 1986. My research shows that the one before that was in 1984. The only Member of the 1984 Parliament and certainly the 1986 Parliament who fully understood the orders, with the exception of the Minister who initiated and replied to the debate, was the right hon. Enoch Powell. He certainly went through the draft orders meticulously and, as usual, with a fine-toothed comb, and found something useful to say about them. I wish that I had that insight and strength of character to say that I had done the same. Unfortunately, the truth is that I have read through the order and cannot find a great deal to say about it.
The order does not deal with the appropriation of cash for public services in Northern Ireland, a point that the Minister did not mention, although his two predecessors did so in previous debates. I regret that, because, had the order dealt with the appropriate of cash, the scope for the debate would have been far wider and we would have been able to call into question the global sums of public expenditure in Northern Ireland and the allocation of those sums between the various services in the Province.
I notice that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is getting a little agitated as she sees the time moving on. I presume that she has her eye on a Bill further down the Order Paper.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am not remotely agitated.

Mr. Marshall: We might disagree about the verb, but I feel that the hon. Lady wishes to discuss a Bill further down the Order Paper.
It is perhaps regrettable that the order does not deal with appropriation, as it would have provided the opportunity to discuss Government policy on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that on many previous occasions I have given the Government credit for the level of public expenditure in the Province. Nevertheless, I repeat that, although the present levels of public expenditure are commendable, in view of the economic and social difficulties and problems, there is still a strong case for even greater increased levels of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is a point we can pursue in the next Appropriation Order debate.
I recognise that the Government need the order to be passed quickly. Perhaps that is why it was laid before the House last week and is being discussed today. If one reads in detail the explanatory memorandum, one sees that the Northern Ireland Estimates for this year were passed on the assumption that the draft order would come into effect in June. If the Government fail to meet that deadline—it is not my intention to engineer that—public expenditure in Northern Ireland will be reduced by £1 million per week, or nearly £5 million per month, or £60 million per year. That would affect the allocation of public expenditure in the North of Ireland. If the order is not passed and the money is not available, it will affect many expenditure programmes, including that of the Housing Executive, as well as expenditure on education and health. It would also affect the Government's privatisation policies in the North of Ireland.
I should like to say a few words about Shorts, a subject I raised with the Minister during Question Time last week. The Minister knows that my party's view remains that the company should continue to be publicly owned. However, I recognise that that battle has now been lost. It is essential to secure and expedite the company's future. We have to have decisions quickly. We all know that the Government have only two bids to consider. The first bid is from Bombardier—I apologise to the company for mispronouncing its name last week—and the second is from GEC-Fokker. It should not take a great deal of time to choose between them. It seems to me and to many other hon. Members that the top management at Shorts has already made a decision and would welcome a takeover by Bombardier. I assume that the recently announced reorganisation of the operational divisions of Shorts is a preliminary step towards that end.
Whatever the truth may be, we have to end quickly the uncertainty over the future of Shorts. That requires a speedy decision by the Government. I press the Minister again to give an assurance that the Government will make their view known within the next two weeks.
Having said that, without further ado I accept the order and commend it to the House.

Rev. Martyn Smyth: I wish to put one or two points on the record. I notice that the order was issued on Wednesday when in Northern Ireland we had a slight local distraction which continued on Thursday and Friday. Therefore, I join the hon. Member for Leicester South (Mr. Marshall) in his tribute to my colleague of past days, the right hon. Enoch Powell. He is a master of figures and he would have studied in detail the draft order.
It has been said that there will be a shortage of funds for education, but education is not mentioned in the order.
Reference is made to funds being given to the Housing Executive, thereby enabling funds to be released for other work. Will those other funds be for housing? Will people who have been trying for months to obtain grants—especially older people who have been trying to modernise their homes—but have been delayed by insufficient funds be given grants, or will they be left waiting because tenders will be out of date by the time funds are made available to help them? Will the funds that are released be retained by the Housing Executive, or will they be given to another Department?
Article 8 makes a change, and is a sweetener to attract Northern Ireland Members, by bringing Northern Ireland into line with current British practice. It provides that the Department of Finance and Personnel, unlike the previous mandatory provisions, may direct departments when to prepare trading accounts. How often will such accounts be prepared?
It is part of the task of hon. Members to monitor supply and expenditure. It has been exceedingly difficult to monitor certain Departments in Northern Ireland, in which expenditure has been rampant over the years. Surely it would have been better to bring Britain in line with practice in Northern Ireland so that there would not be a long lead time before the accounts are published of the various commercial, trading and manufacturing services that Departments might operate. The House should have had such monitoring machinery earlier, but it is being offered now, perhaps to save on administrative costs and perhaps, in the long run, to cover the other losses of millions of pounds that we have been unable to monitor.
This is not an appropriation debate, so we cannot probe funds more carefully, but do the new regulations providing loans for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service mean that the Government have decided not to go ahead with privatisation of the NIES, which would please many people in Northern Ireland? Does it mean that the Government have discussed a new link between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or does it mean that the Government are prepared to go ahead with the Scottish link, which would keep the United Kingdom and the EEC together for the good of our people?

Mr. James Kilfedder: Having had the opportunity to speak earlier this evening, I shall intervene only briefly.
I should like to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) about the funds that will be available to the Housing Executive. Will the Housing Executive be able to make the grants that many people in North Down have been asking for and carry out vital repairs on its estates?
I hope that, before long, the people of Northern Ireland, not English Ministers in Westminster, will be able to decide financial provision, because Stormont is where such matters should be dealt with.

Mr. Ian Stewart: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I think that many of us would welcome progress towards devolution of responsibility to elected representatives in Northern Ireland, and. I endorse what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has said.
The hon. Members for North Down and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made specific points about the Housing Executive. The funds released for public expenditure purposes in general by article 3 are not hypothecated in housing, but they influence the amount made available over all the programmes in the current financial year. The resources used to write off the Housing Executive loans are not funds which arose from housing but are the result of closing a number of obsolete accounts containing money which went into them for various reasons. There is no particular case for applying them to housing. Nevertheless, there are housing needs, and that is why we have sustained a substantial programme in this area of public expenditure. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, the order will increase the funds available for public expenditure by about £1 million per week, and that will continue throughout the current financial year and in the future. This has enabled us in the last annual public expenditure round to see higher public expenditure figures than we would otherwise have had.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked about article 8 and how often discretion would be used by the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of formal trading accounts. For example, there are at present only three trading accounts in respect of services operated by the Department of Agriculture—a fish farm, a pig testing station and the forest service. Of those, only the forest service is a true trading activity which would require formal trading accounts. When the order is implemented, the Department will probably dispense with the need for trading accounts for the other services. It will be a matter of using discretion, but it should enable quite a lot of rather pointless bureaucratic exercises to end.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's answer. I was thinking also of the development of privatisation and in-house trading within, for example, the Department of Health and Social Services.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is going rather wider than the matter in hand. I will let him know whether I have any further comments. I should not like him to think that these decisions have been taken in advance because they have not, but it is sensible to have this measure available and to see when it can properly be applied. It may therefore be a considerable time before any sensible answer to the hon Gentleman's question is available.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked me whether article 6 had any implications for privatisation of electricity or the connector link. It has no implications one way or the other. It is designed simply to ensure that any Government loan to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service is automatically secured on the assets and revenue of the service without having to go to the bother of constructing a special legal mortgage or other document. It should simplify the financial arrangements for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the Government agency making the loan.
It would not be right to comment at this stage on Shorts, when the bids are being carefully assessed, but I assure the hon. Member for Leicester, South that it is not the Government's intention to delay that process longer than necessary to deal with the matter properly, as he would wish.
On the general scope of the debate, I am sorry that I never had the opportunity to take part in one when Mr. Enoch Powell was still in the House, but I know of his formidable debating skills from my time as a Treasury Minister and I have no doubt that he would have found all sorts of ins and outs in the document before us. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South recognises, however, the order does not go into specific matters of appropriation, for the simple reason that it is concerned largely with technicalities. There are other occasions on which we can debate appropriation and public expenditure generally. If the normal pattern is followed—I have no reason to think that it will not be—we shall have another appropriation order debate before too long when we can look into more general matters of public expenditure.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and for the support given to the order, which I hope that the House will now pass.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Human Organ Transplants Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Organ Transplants Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the expenses of any authority exercising functions under that Act.
Clause 2(4) of the Bill contains the provision that authorises payment out of moneys provided by Parliament. The financial effects of the Bill will be limited to the expenses of running the authority. The sum involved is very small £20,000 per annum—which is considered the maximum total cost likely to be incurred by members of the authority in carrying out their functions under the Act. Expenses of the authority will cover such items as claims by members for travel, subsistence, overnight accommodation and meeting postage and telephone costs. Also, some minor items of office equipment, including stationery and computer software, may have to be made available to members of the authority.
We envisage that members of the authority will wish to meet frequently, following the Bill's enactment, to familiarise themselves with the handling of referrals and adopt a common approach. In time, we expect members to carry out their functions mainly by post and telephone with occasional meetings to review progress. The final decision about such arrangements, however, will rest with the chairman and members of the authority. We also expect that the authority will wish to maintain a record of cases referred to members. Some dedicated computer equipment will be provided to the authority for this purpose. This is a modest sum for a specifically limited purpose and I commend the resolution to the House.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: It seems that the money resolution, which my hon. Friend assures us is only for a small sum, is remarkably open-ended. It relates to an unspecified authority which is to be set up by as yet unpublished regulations. My hon. Friend talked about members of the authority and that is the first time that I have heard him make reference to a membership of the authority, for there is nothing in the Bill that refers to members of the authority. That membership was not referred to on Second Reading. What sort of authority will we be setting up? What do we want that authority to do? From Second Reading, we know from my hon. Friend that the policing of this Bill is central to its effectiveness, and that therefore how the Bill is to be policed must be spelt out in detail at some stage in the Bill's progress through Standing Committee, through the final stages in this House and in the other place.
We also know from Second Reading that there will be a register. Presumably it will either be held centrally, with copies in all the hospitals that are equipped to carry out transplant operations or, alternatively, a register will be held in each hospital that is capable of carrying out such operations. I am guessing at the details, but operations involving the transplant or removal of organs will be

detailed in the register. Presumably it will spell out who performed the operation, who gave the organ and to whom it has been given.
However, that still leaves me wondering whether we shall be any the wiser about whether the organ has been obtained legally or illegally. What mechanism can my hon. Friend suggest to guarantee that organs will be donated legally? I am also left wondering whether a specific duty to maintain the accuracy of the register will be imposed on hospitals that perform transplant operations. If such a duty is to be imposed, what penalty will be incurred by a hospital where the register is found to be neither up to date or accurate?
My hon. Friend the Minister has told the House that he estimates that £20,000 will be required to police the Bill. However, he told the Standing Committee with great honesty that the size of the Bill's task is unknown. The Government do not know how many commercial sales of kidneys have taken place at any stage during the past decade. In those circumstances we do not know whether we are talking about a very small number of such sales or whether they are common practice. To some extent my hon. Friend is guessing both about the Bill's task and about how he will police a system which, at the moment, appears to be outside anybody's control.
I say this with the greatest respect—I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend—but he is estimating, or at least his advisers are telling him, that for £20,000 he can set up an authority, cover its travelling costs, fund the bureaucracy that such an authority may need and hold a register, whether centrally or in the hospitals. He believes that he can do all that for £20,000, but we all know that 1 he price of a good secretary is at least half that sum. I suggest that he will be hard pressed to introduce a workable scheme for that very small sum.
I began by saying that this money resolution is open-ended and I think it is probably better that way. Perhaps at this stage, before he has brought forward regulations and spelt out the details of the authority, my hon. Friend might be wiser not to state the figure that he thinks will be required. I have an uneasy feeling that he might find that he has considerably under-estimated.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Although I am addressing my remarks strictly to the money resolution, I regret and feel sad that the Second Reading of the Bill was not taken on the Floor of the House. In principle, the Bill has universal support in the House and I cannot believe that any harm would have been done by allowing those of us who have strong feelings on certain aspects of the Bill an opportunity to debate it in full on the Floor of the House. Whatever the arguments—there certainly are some—for curtailing amendments which merely prolong discussion of the Bill, I cannot see any arguments against taking Second Reading on the Floor of the House, and I am sorry that that was not done.
Before you call me to order, Mr. Speaker, I will return to the money resolution. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) I doubt very much, although for different reasons, whether what is proposed could be carried out entirely within the modest sum that my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested. If I were a member of the authority concerned, faced with a rule a s vague as that in clause 5, I should spend a great deal of


time and incur a great deal of expenditure simply attending meetings to decide what on earth the rule meant and where the remit of the authority began and ended.
Clause 5 states:
In this Act 'organ' means any part of a human body consisting of a structured arrangement of tissues which, if wholly removed, cannot be replicated by the body.
At first sight, that seems quite clear, but at what point is it a "structured arrangements of tissues"? Presumably, tissue itself is not included because that can be replicated, at least by a live body. Let us suppose that a brain is removed for the use of part of it. Will that be covered by the Bill or, will it not be covered because the entire organ is not being used? I envisage a great deal of lawyers' time being spent, as well as a great deal more than the £20,000 allocated, in trying to sort out exactly what the Bill means. For instance, when referring to the human body, do we mean both pre-birth and post-birth human bodies, or only one or the other?
My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the concern about the use of foetal tissue. Currently, it is only the tissue that is used, and presumably my hon. Friend believes that that does not have to be dealt with at quite the speed that he has had to deal with the sale of organs. However, as there are not even regulations for the definite separation of procurement and use of foetal tissue, what is to prevent the sudden discovery that such tissue is being sold? A year ago we would have said that we could not even contemplate the sale of organs, certainly not in this country, but we have since learnt to the contrary. If we also learn to the contrary that tissue, foetal parts or organs are being sold, will that be covered by the Bill, or will the authority have to discuss at great length whether it is within its remit to act under the Bill? What exactly does the Bill cover?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not delve too deeply into the merits of the Bill, important though it is, because the Bill has had a Second Reading. There will be opportunities on Report to deal with the matters that she is now raising. The money resolution is narrow.

Miss Widdecombe: I have a feeling that the Report stage will be even narrower if it is treated in the same way as Second Reading. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate that there are perfectly good reasons, which I do not dispute, for hurrying through the Bill. I have related my remarks to the fact that we have been told that the authority is to operate at a total cost of £20,000. The Bill is vague and leaves many questions unanswered. Developments during the past year have clearly shown that there could be further developments, so that the authority could not possibly carry out its activities for the sum of £20,000. I am therefore relating my remarks strictly to the money resolution although I am aware that I might be slightly trying your patience, Mr. Speaker.
If my hon. Friend the Minister will not respond to my remarks under the terms of the money resolution—I suspect that there is not a great deal of will to deal with the problem of foetal tissue—will he say at what future stage of the Bill he expects hon. Members to have the opportunity to discuss these wider issues on the Floor of the House and not in some Committee to which we do not all have access? They are important issues which have been

crushed out. It would try your patience, Mr. Speaker, if I recited the history of their being crushed out, so I merely state that they have been.

Mr. Freeman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has, once again, raised the quality of the debate. He asked me four questions relating to the money resolution. It was never contemplated that the authority would have any policing responsibility. There might have been some misunderstanding about that. Its job will be simply to review cases where there is a live donation in the offing and the donor is not closely related genetically to the recipient.
The authority will have no responsibility for the wider policing of the Act relating to donations from those who have died. Such donations account for the vast majority of kidney transplants. Therefore, the authority's role and scope are limited. Membership and procedures will be detailed in regulations, subject to procedures in the House. I can assure the House that, in Standing Committee, I will certainly ensure that there is a proper briefing for members of the Standing Committee and other hon. Members about our thoughts on the authority. We are discussing with the legal profession at this moment how the authority should proceed and operate. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I hope that I have allayed them.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has said that the authority does not have a policing role and that it will deal with donations. How can donations be verified? Years ago, I asked questions about trade in foetal tissue, and I found a stone wall and ambiguity. Surely there should be a policing role for the authority.

Mr. Freeman: The authority will be charged with reviewing the relatively few cases of proposed donation from non-genetically related individuals. It will certainly wish to investigate the relationship between the donor and the recipient and whether there is evidence of any money having been passed in this country or abroad. It must use its own judgment. When a donation is required, judgments cannot wait for weeks or months, they must be made quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked about the register and the implications for expense. The register is not covered by the Bill. The register that we are discussing with the medical profession is essential not only for recording donations, particularly live donations and all transplants, but for the recording of clinical information. I am sure that it will be helpful for clinical research purposes. It is not covered by the money resolution. The expenses incurred in setting up a register will be covered to the extent that they fall upon the National Health Service in the normal course of events—that is to say, through district health authorities.
My hon. Friend asked also about the task that the authority will perform in relation to the amount of money provided for in the money resolution. There are about 200 live organ donations each year. Only a small percentage of them are between non-closely genetically related people. Therefore, the balance, which is a small minority, will be those cases that the authority will examine.

Mr. Barry Field: I wrote to my hon. Friend's Department pointing out that there was a


historical post within his Department, Her Majesty's inspector of anatomy. The post was created on the basis of tissue and cadaver sales. I wonder whether we should increase the responsibilities of that post to police that very problem.

Mr. Freeman: I will certainly examine that point. I have not yet had the chance to read my hon. Friend's letter. It does not directly affect the money resolution except in so far as it relates to the number of people involved in reviewing proposed donations. We need a collection of wisdom, including clinical judgment. I doubt whether the job could or should be delegated to an authority, which presumably means officials, and perhaps one person in particular. Flexible judgment is required in terms of a collection of individuals who are appointed for their eminence in this medical specialty rather than as a group of officials.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend effectively saying that he expects someone in hospital to get in touch with the authority to say that he is concerned that an organ transplant may be taking place that is not within the terms of the law and that therefore he would like the authority to investigate? Is that how my hon. Friend considers the mechanism will work?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that we shall go into this in greater detail in Standing Committee, but the brief answer is yes, I expect such notification to be made, although I do not envisage a detailed examination of each particular case at the hospital concerned. However, I hope that the procedures can be expedited and a quick response given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) drew my attention to clause 5, and doubtless we shall debate that clause in Committee. My hon. Friend asked about foetal tissue. As to the foetal tissue not convered by clause 5, I explained in the Second Reading Committee that a committee due to report shortly, the Polkinghorne committee, will review entirely the regulations governing the use of foetal tissue for research. I am not, however, aware, of any commercial trade in foetal tissue and therefore, as far as clause 5 is concerned, it does not affect the money resolution, which I commend to the House.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Organ Transplants Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the expenses of any authority exercising functions under that Act.

Recreational Land

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. John M. Taylor.)

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to address you, Mr. Speaker, at this unusually early hour for an Adjournment debate.
Every four years, a large section of the British public pays its homage to sport. Furnished with high-cholesterol food and drink, such people park themselves in front of the television and marvel at the prowess of Olympic athletes. At other times they watch "Match of the Day" and the cup final, read the sport pages and engage in the gentle activity of walking to and from their cars. They die of heart disease, obesity and chest complaints.
We are lectured, sometimes rather confusingly, about what we should eat. We bemoan the fact that Britain has one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world, and we tell people not to smoke. Apart from advice, we do little in a practical manner to encourage regular physical exercise. Even when we do consider sporting facilities for the public our thoughts are more likely to centre on artificial playing surfaces, expensive well-equipped sports stadiums or recreational land on the fringes of our cities, which is accessible only to those with cars.
Every year, however, bit by bit, acre by acre, inner-city recreational land is lost for ever to development. The Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates that 100,000 acres has been lost, a figure that the Department of the Environment is unable to substantiate because it has no statistics on that appalling erosion. In the west midlands, half the private sports grounds have disappeared. In Bristol, in the past 15 years there has been a net loss of 69 acres and another 8·5 acres are under immediate threat.
Everyone agrees that sports are a good thing. They improve the nation's health and productively channel the pent-up energies of young people; and team sports foster co-operation with and consideration for others. On 19 April, however, in response to a series of written question from me, it became clear that the Department of the Environment had no idea how much recreational land there is, where it is, or whether the amount of such land is increasing or decreasing. It did not even know what should be the optimum availability of such recreational land.
Labour and Conservative Governments have been at fault. Because they have not perceived the problem, no facts have been compiled, and because no statistics have been kept, Governments have not perceived the problem. In consequence, although since 1970 there have been seven circulars, two development control policy notes and two planning policy guidance notes relating to housing development, and three circulars and one planning policy guidance note relating to retail development, the present Government circular dealing with recreational land is 18 years old. Although I accept that the Department, in response to requests from myself and others, now intends to issue a planning policy guidance note towards the end of the year covering sport and recreation, its action is belated. Much damage has been done, and further delay would be intolerable.
Everyone acknowledges the value of the royal and other parks in London, of Hampstead heath and of Epping forest. We recognise that the greatness of our cities


lies in grand public buildings, sweeping crescents and imposing squares and in the delight of trees and the glimpses of green, the visual and environmental refreshment that these green lungs give to us all. No Government would dare license the development of St. James's park or Hampstead heath, yet bit by bit, acre by acre—this is unseen, unnoticed and uncounted by the Government—recreational land that in area is far in excess of all the inner London parks is lost to development.
In areas where there is no habit of travelling to take part in sport, where money is tight, where people need encouragement to be more than mere spectators, where juvenile crime is widespread and where early death through ailments associated with lack of exercise are more common then elsewhere, the erosion of recreational land is the fastest.
Inner-city sites are extremely valuable, and they are easy to build on. In consequence, they are more profitable to developers. The lack of statutory support that is given to local authorities to resist on planning grounds the loss of recreational land results in developers appealing successfully against local authorities' decisions to deny planning permission. It is not adequate for the Department of the Environment to rest its case on the lack of local structure and development plans. Such plans do not have the status of planning circulars or guidelines. Their period of gestation is so long that they are often out of date as soon as they are published.
With each planning inquiry being decided in isolation, without knowledge of the wider picture, it is unsurprising that developers are taking the easier course of infilling on green field sites rather then doing what we would all prefer them to do—revivifying our cities by returning to productive use decayed and derelict inner-city areas. One of the pressures on inner-city land comes because it is difficult to build in the countryside, but it should be possible to satisfy the needs of the cities and to retain England as green and pleasant land.
I am sure that the proposed PPG will take into account the White Paper, which is entitled "The Future of Development Plans". I trust that it will also recognise that sport and recreation are of national importance. Just as planning policy guidance specifies how land should be allocated for housing, as new homes give rise to the need for more recreational space, so the Department should define the level of provision. This form of calculating need must be clear and resistant to challenge and should command wide support.
The PPG must include consideration of latent demand, recognise the special need for open space within low-income areas, accept that all-weather surfaces should be complementary to grass pitches rather than substitutes for them and appreciate the role that sports grounds belonging to educational establishments and in private hands play in protecting and enhancing our environment.
Present charity law imposes an obligation on a charity to sell its assets for the highest value. We have seen this requirement in operation in Bristol. Even if the vendor is prepared to sell at the lower recreational use value, he is prohibited from doing so. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to raise this matter with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has recently published a White Paper on charities, and with the Treasury. My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should consider extending the concept of the green belt and provide greater statutory inspection for open-air recreational land by implementing a green space policy for inner-city land. I particularly believe that that is necessary for publicly owned land, and land held by charitable institutions. However, as I recognise that we do not want creeping nationalisation, possibly there should be different rules for open space which is held in private hands. Just as the clean air legislation and the green belt policy has protected us all, so an urban green space policy will be recognised by generations to come as the action of an enlightened Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) is anxious to speak. I understand that he has permission to intervene from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), and he certainly has my permission as well. He wants to refer to specific problems in Bristol. However, I cannot finish without pressing on my hon. Friend the Minister the fact that, if we wish to have dirtier air in our cities, we need to get rid of the green space. If we want health to decline, we need to continue to dissuade people from taking part in physical sports. If we want to channel children's energy into crime, we need simply to remove the sports pitches which help them to burn up their energy.
Inner-city and urban-area open recreational space is a very valuable commodity. If we build on it, we will lose it for all time. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember that.

Mr. Robert Hayward: It gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), because I believe that recreational land is important to Bristol and to the nation generally. I am disappointed that there are no Opposition Members present to hear the debate.
This subject was originally drawn to my attention partly through my activities as a rugby referee, and also by the Bristols sports consultative committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East and I both want to pay tribute to the efforts of that committee in pressing hon. Members, councillors and others into public awareness of the problems which are developing in Bristol.
As my hon. Friend said, there are a series of serious threats throughout Bristol in terms of loss of land. In general, within the immediate inner city of Bristol, what limited land there is, is protected. The real problem arises from that progressive erosion to which my hon. Friend referred, particularly in what I might loosely describe as the outer inner-city belt, which in my constituency is represented by areas such as St. George, Hillfields, Speedwell and the Fishponds area, where recreational land is limited and is substantially under threat.
As my hon. Friend said, the planning guidelines date back to 1970. They are not much use to people who want to oppose a proposed loss of a sports field or for the city council opposing a proposed development.
The guidelines are unclear. Even where there is a proposal for limited development of part of a sports field which may, in some cases, save a sports club, residents and the city council oppose the development because they feel that salami tactics will develop. While one piece of land


might be lost, the automatic response from residents is that, if it is lost, in two, five or eight years the next bit of land might disappear, until there are no sports fields left in the area. I support my hon. Friend in claiming that we need a clear, coherent and urgent planning policy guidance note for all concerned.
In Bristol recently, questions have been raised about the major sports developments at Imperial, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East has made representations to the Hanson Trust. He received an assurance that at this stage there are no proposals to build on any part of that sports facility. It is one of the greatest assets on the southern side of the city and would be a disastrous loss to what I described in respect of my own constituency as the outer belt of the inner city. I hope that it continues to be the case that there will be no plans to develop it.
In my own constituency and just outside it there are proposals to develop the Butler memorial ground, part of Cleeve rugby club, and Kingswood rugby club. Some of the proposals have the support of the sports club. I do not expect the Minister to comment specifically on those proposals, and I shall not do so either. Instead, I shall highlight the threat to sports grounds at this moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, it is worth considering the number of grounds lost over the past few years. According to Bristol city council calculations, those losses amounted to about 69 acres. I believe that that is an under-estimate. In the last few years we have lost the Eastfield road site of the Clifton rugby club, although that was replaced by an alternative site; part of Golden hill; Water lane, Hungerford road, Broomhill road, Brentry hospital; Southmead hospital; Frenchay road, part of Coombe Dingle; another part of Golden hill; Burchells green; and Manor park hospital sports fields. That is a litany of lost land, most of it concentrated in the outer inner-city belt. It has all been lost to housing, and therefore it has been lost for all time.
I said that the city council had under-estimated the land lost, because, from reviewing that list and other documents that the council provided, it appears that it failed to identify the loss three years ago of the Scott Musson Thrisell football field, on which my own house was built, and that of Eastville stadium, where Bristol Rovers previously played. Technically, that is still an open space, but not for much longer. The scale of the problem, even in a city such as Bristol, is larger than one may imagine.
It would be unfair to expect a full response from my hon. Friend the Minister this evening, but I hope that clear guidance will be given. What do the Government expect of Bristol in terms of a policy, so that the city can identify land that it intends protecting as sports fields for all time—particularly in advance of a Bristol development plan? It is all very well the Department of the Environment saying that, once that plan is clear, everyone will know precisely what land will be protected. Unfortunately, as we all recognise, development plans take a long time to prepare, and meanwhile we could lose a substantial part of the playing fields to which I referred.
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether Bristol is out of step with other cities. Is it losing more sports fields? Has it protected its sports fields inadequately? Are there ways in which the city council, if it pursued policy correctly, could be more successful at protecting open spaces within areas of very high housing development than it is at present?
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East about the continuing loss of playing fields in Bristol and in the country as a whole. If anything proves how difficult it is to regain such land after it has been lost, it is the example of Eastville. A few years ago, Bristol Rovers moved out of Bristol and now play at Chirton park in Bath, but they seek site after site to relocate within the city. They are finding it virtually impossible. That shows how difficult it is to replace land that is lost, even if it is on the outer side of city areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) on raising the subject of this Adjournment debate. It is one of concern not only to his constituents but to many others throughout the country. Because of my Friend's persistence, his activities have taken on the characteristics of a national campaign, and it is none the worse for that. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) ensured that the debate was even fuller than otherwise is would have been.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East knows, it is the Government's policy to encourage sport and physical recreation in its widest sense, and to provide more oppportunities for all members of the community to enjoy the increasingly wide range of activities that are now attracting interest. We know the tremendous benefit and pleasure that people derive from sport and recreation, both as participants and as spectators, and we are keen to see that there is as much opportunity for them as possible.
I hope that my hon. Friends will take some encouragement from the statistics. In 1983–84, 10·6 million men and women took part in indoor sports and 12·6 million in outdoor sports. By 1987–88, the figures had increased to 12·2 million and 13 million respectively. That shows the increasing participation in sport.
One important way in which to increase participation is to provide local and regional facilities. During 1987–88, the Sports Council provided grant aid of nearly £9 million to stimulate and promote new schemes. In the south-west region alone, there were 103 schemes, including 29 new hard sports facilities and seven new outdoor grass pitches.
The regional councils of sport and recreation have carried out local studies of the availability of recreational land in their areas. Those studies suggest that, although the position varies from area to area, the overall provision of recreational land has remained fairly static. In some areas the pattern of ownership has changed—for example, there has been a reduction in the number of playing fields in industrial ownership. That has been matched, however, by a substantial increase in both the quality and quantity of provision in the voluntary sector, with, for example, some 100 new artificial turf pitches being provided in the last 10 years.
Further evidence of the Government's support for sport and recreation can be found in the comprehensive approach of our action for cities initiative. The promotion of facilities for sport and recreation is an important element of that initiative, and funding for such facilities is available through the urban programme, city grant and inner city task forces.
In 1988–89, urban programme funds amounting to £17 million were granted to a total of 3,358 sport and


recreational projects, which attracted a total of over 63 million users during the year. One city grant scheme that will be of particular interest to my hon. Friends involved a grant of £145,000 to the Bristol Hawks Gymnastics club towards the cost of converting a disused building into a gymnastics centre.
My hon. Friends have concentrated on the loss of recreational land in Bristol. Although in the 15 years from 1973 to 1988 there has been a net loss of—according to our calculations—19·2 hectares of recreational land to development, Bristol can claim to be well provided with open space generally, and few places in the city are far from such space or from the countryside. That, of course, is no reason for complacency, and my hon. Friends are certainly not complacent: they are anxious that Bristol's existing character should be maintained.
My hon. Friends will appreciate that I cannot comment on any specific recent or prospective planning cases, but I assure the House that the views that have been expressed today will be borne in mind when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes decisions on the cases currently before him. Each proposal must, of course, be considered on its individual merits, and we must weigh the need for recreational land against the claims for other uses competing for it. That can lead to some difficult decisions, and, as my hon. Friends will know, it is seldom possible to reach planning decisions that meet with everyone's approval; that is one of the delights of being Secretary of State for the Environment.
One piece of advice that I can give is that one of the best ways to safeguard public recreational land is for local planning authorities to include policies with that objective in their local development plans. Such plans and policies will not provide an absolute guarantee, as they will be only one of the many material considerations that planning authorities and inspectors must take into account when determining planning applications and appeals. Nevertheless, up-to-date local plans, consistent with national policies and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan, will carry considerable weight both in local planning decisions and in appeals and other cases decided by my right hon. Friend or his inspectors.
I would give the same advice to people concerned generally about the intense pressure for development that undoubtedly exists in some urban areas, whether that pressure affects gardens, recreational land, or other public or private open space. There is no substitute for a well thought out, thoroughly debated and properly adopted local plan containing policies dealing with these issues. The plan should be realistic and must not, for example, simply seek to outlaw all development, but provided the plan demonstrates how housing and other necessary development can be accommodated, it will be legitimate for it also to include firm policies on issues such as housing densities and the protection of the open spaces that make such a vital contribution to the character of our towns and cities. If realistic policies are in properly adopted local plans, they will carry considerable weight.
This is the essential message of the planning policy guidance note on local plans that we issued last November. That note draws attention to the fact that large areas of England and Wales are still without formally adopted and up-to-date local plans. It urges local authorities to make

full use of this key component of the planning system to provide a clear basis for sound and sustainable development control decisions.
Until very recently, there was no up-to-date adopted local plan containing policies for the protection of recreational land in Bristol. There is now an adopted local plan for Bedminster, which includes policies to increase recreational opportunities, especially for young children. Elsewhere in Bristol, the city council relies on a non-statutory 1984 report entitled "Open Space in Bristol" when determining applications and arguing its case on appeal. That report, while better than nothing, does not carry the same weight as a formal local plan which has been through the proper process of public consultations, modification—as necessary in the light of comments—and, finally, adoption.
Both the city council and local authorities may be assisted in the task of devising appropriate policies for protecting open spaces by the results of a research project that my Department has recently commissioned from Birmingham polytechnic. One of the aims of this project is to examine the role of local authorities in creating new and retaining existing open spaces in inner-city areas. The results of that project should be available towards the end of the year.
The important role of local plans will be one of the messages in the new planning policy guidance note. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East claimed credit, quite rightly, for having elicited a commitment from the Government to implement a revised planning policy guidance note on the subject of sport and recreation. The aim of the note will be to consolidate existing guidance—some of which is, on any view, outdated and spread between several different departmental circulars—and to update that guidance as necessary. We hope to issue the note later in the year.
The note will focus on issues that are legitimate concerns of the planning system. The extent to which there is a shortfall in provision will be a local matter to be dealt with in local plans. It will be for the local planning authority to identify deficiencies in provision and to justify the amount and location against other competing pressures for the use of that land. The note will remind local planning authorities of the importance of public consultation in the preparation and amendment of local plans and of the need to consult the regional councils for sport and recreation about their policies and about individual development control decisions, as necessary.
My officials have had preliminary discussions with officers of the Sports Council about the scope and content of the proposed planning policy guidance note. I have also noted the constructive and helpful suggestions put forward on behalf of the Bristol sports association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East. I can assure him that all these suggestions will be taken most carefully into account as work on the note proceeds.
To answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood about what can be done now—because the implementation of these plans takes time—even at the preliminary stage a plan that is about to go out for consultation carries more weight than a plan that has not been drawn up. Although the plan that carries the most weight will be the one that has been fully adopted, even at an intermediate stage a plan that is still under


discussion can be a useful mechanism for a local authority that wishes to impress the inspectorate with its policies for the protection of recreational land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East referred to charities. He is in as strong a position as anybody to raise these matters with our right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, but I shall raise them, too. My hon. Friend knows that a White Paper on charities has been published recently. It is a

topical subject for discussion in the House, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have opportunities to develop further his ideas.
I thank my hon. Friends for raising this issue. It is now a national issue. I hope that I have satisfied the House that the Government are addressing it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.